North Carolina Poll: Bush 53%, Kerry 42%; Bush 47%, Edwards 50%

[Timahoe]

http://www.surveyusa.com/currentelectionpolls.html

Bush (R)

53%
Kerry (D)
42%
Bush (R)
47%
Edwards (D)
50%

Data Collected

2/23/04 - 2/25/04

Geography

State of North Carolina

Sample Population

654 Registered Voters

Margin of Error

3.9%

Client

WBTV-TV Charlotte


WTVD-TV Raleigh - Durham

[Timahoe]

1. Edwards can win in the South, Kerry can't

eom

[mmonk]

17. Like in Virginia and Tennessee?

Kerry hasn't even campaigned in NC yet. NC is is also loaded with vets that could organize. I do think a Kerry/Edwards ticket though could wrestle NC away from the repubs in presidential politics and would swing the election our way. But polls this early are meaningless for the general lection.

[scheming daemons]

2. But all the Kerry Supporters keep repeating the mantra...

... "Edwards couldn't even win his own state".


If Edwards is our nominee, we can pick off some southern states. With Kerry, we will get swept south of the Mason-Dixon line.


And we'll have no margin for error in the "blue" states.


Edwards will deliver ALL of the same states that Kerry would, but also a few more.


Name a state that Kerry would win that Edwards WOULDN'T win? There is none...

[Timahoe]

3. More is at stake than the presidency!

There are five open Senate races in the South. If Kerry is the nominee, we'll get crushed in the South, and the Repubs might take all five open senate seats!

[ngGale]

4. Edwards is the only candidate that can...

take the South.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. Isn't surveyusa always a right leaning poll?

ANd how is it Edwards has 50% when he was not favored to run again in his own state?

[Bombtrack]

6. a double digit lead against the top polling repub isn't being favored?

Maybe you should try NOT believing all of the bullshit that the anti-Edwards people spew out and learn the facts for yourself?

[Dookus]

7. Maybe YOU

should try not believing the bullshit argument that a candidate carrying his home state is all that meaningful.

[PurityOfEssence]

9. I defy you to seriously say that the right prefers running against Edwards

They're ready to hack Kerry to pieces in the South as a Patrician, out-of-touch, wild-spending liberal. (That's not just conjecture either; look at the price tag on his health plan.) He'll be successfully demonized in the South, and that will leave VERY little margin for error in the rest of the few swing states, where that QUARTER OF A BILLION DOLLARS or more of campaign money will be effectively spent.

We have to compete EVERYWHERE. There are many disaffected people to pick up.

Ever live in the South, Teena? It's not a horrible or excessively parochial place; hell parts of New England where I grew up are more close-minded than many parts of the South, but that Boston Liberal crap's going to really work. (I've spent a lot of time in the South, both of my parents are Southerners, my family lives there, and I spent lots of time with Grandparents there.)

It's a species of denial to think that a very stuffy and distant guy from the demonized land of tax and spend won't be fighting an uphill battle all the way. Writing off the South is as sensible as blowing off a couple weeks of primaries. Math sucks, but when you surrender enough states so that you absolutely have to win everywhere else, you make it awfully easy for your opponents.

Edwards is the best candidate we've had since LBJ in '64; it's an opportunity that'd be ridiculous to throw away. It makes no sense whatsoever.

I guarantee you that the right does not want to run against Edwards. Inexperience, feh. He's the goddam American Dream in a nice blue suit. Think of the idiot's dream: I can make it, I really can. That's why many like Junior and it's crazy to point out his pathetic circuitry: he's the patron saint of the stupid; look, a C-student can be Prezdent!

Come on, you're a reasonable person; I can't believe you can seriously believe that the right is more afraid of Kerry than Edwards; hell, Kerry isn't even going to put up a fight in a lot of states and they know that.

[PurityOfEssence]

8. Edwards can get virtually every vote Kerry can, and many, many more

The reverse simply can't be said. That's the frustrating truth.

Many people who are ready to bolt from the dolt (Junior) would be hard pressed to do so for a New England Limousine Liberal who sounds stuffy and professorial, but they'd do so for a backwoods bohunk Methodist who knows how to listen. To their credit, Northeasterners are much more tolerant of the "other" than their counterparts in the South. Fair? No. Accurate? Absolutely.

Kerry might get a few more veterans, but that's it. Edwards will get everyone else that Kerry can, plus Southerners, rural voters, facile surfacy types, those who are usually non-voters and youth.

This is always the problem with the primaries: a refusal to be rational about the General Election.

It's maddening; he's literally the best candidate we've had in 40 years, and we're seemingly hellbent on throwing it all away again.

Kerry may well be able to win, but we need the insurance of as broad an appeal as we can get. It's a long time until November.

If all that's not enough, then listen to this, bearing in mind that Kerry is running on experience and Foreign Policy wisdom. "So Senator Kerry, why did you vote against the first Gulf War? The fifth largest army on earth had invaded and occupied an ally of ours and was threatening further expansion."

They'll ask that. They'll pick and choose other votes, too. They'll cheat, steal, and if they know that the South is safe, they can concentrate all their mischievousness on other areas and steal enough to get away with it.

[Awsi Dooger]

12. So maddening I'm a nightly insomniac due to the idiocy

Quite literally.

Our refusal to grasp the geographical and sociological realities of this election is beyond belief. It turns an almost certain win into probable slow-torture defeat. Kerry will have to be near perfect and catch every imaginable break to run the table in the states he will be competitive in.

Why are we so giddy at this primary season? The early poll numbers are inevitable, given the monopoly coverage and Bush's weak record on the homefront.

We dicked around with two gimmick candidates for months. Then a mindless tilt-the-table retreat to Kerry. Meanwhile, the likeable great communicator was smack in our laps the entire time.

Oh, I forgot, that doesn't mean anything, for the first time in American history. We need a rambling, electable ex-vet who can soften our national security disadvantage.

No wonder bookmakers get rich.

[carolinayellowdog]

16. Hasty generalization

You wrote:

"To their credit, Northeasterners are much more tolerant of the "other" than their counterparts in the South. Fair? No. Accurate? Absolutely"

Absolutely inaccurate based on hundreds of exchanges here on DU I've observed; the regional intolerance and hostility has been 10-1 directed at Southerners.

Bush I, no Southerner by any stretch of the imagination, did fairly well in the South against a Southerner. As did Dole. Reagan beat Carter by a bigger margin in the South than elsewhere. Loyal Dems and Repugs are going to vote for their party's nominee in the South just as they will anywhere else. Independents and swing voters here are more susceptible to regional loyalties, but other factors can certainly overcome that as the above examples indicate. It's the liberal label more than the northeastern label that will work against Kerry in the South, IMO.

[Ridley Park 704]

10. I think either K or E could win this election

Things should be a lot clearer on Tuesday.


Edwards is a good candidate, he has stood out ever since he beat Faircloth. I'm just afraid that in the final weeks the reich wing will hammer ad nauseum, "This guy has no military experience to prove he can defeat the terrorists. Stick with George W. Bush, a proven leader, your life may depend on it."

At least with Kerry they are left flatfooted.

Hey, put them both on the same ticket, best of both worlds.

[Bombtrack]

11. A person who flew an obsolete plane as his "military experience"

when he became president hammering a man with a term on the US senate intelligence commitee will backfire at least enough that the same number of independants who fall for it will be turned off by the hypocracy

It will not however backfire, in any way I see, to say that Kerry voted against all of the weapons systems that we are using in Iraq, and for gutting or dissolving the CIA. They can't say that about Edwards.

[Lexingtonian]

13. yeah, that'll last

Bush hasn't done one of his post-primary visits to NC. Those 54% for Liddy Dole voters aren't going to be sticking with Edwards for long when a nice-sounding Republican actually shows up.

Notice also that Bush/Edwards is within M.O.E. of sampling error- Bush has an ~10% chance of actually being ahead.

And I'm not sure any Edwards supporter here has shown me what Edwards's ratings in any states are after Bush's followup visit. In those numbers I wouldn't be surprised to see the conservatives who show up for Edwards going back to the GOP when they see Bush trying to embrace them again.

[Bombtrack]

14. Edwards does 14 points better than Kerry against Bush in NC

Kerry does a whopping 1 percent better than Edwards in NH against Bush.

[Lexingtonian]

15. If/when Edwards loses NC to Bush

as can be reasonably expected with some serious effort by W, your point as such becomes irrelevant.

The NH voter demographic is simply more genuinely Independent than NC's. 6% voted third party in '00- Bush won 48%-46%. He won NC 56%-44% against a Southerner. Assuming NH shifted Democratic by the national average in the East of 1%-2% and NC shifted 4% (Liddy got 54% halfway through the term), that's parity in NH for Democrats this year and ~5% mostly Green-leaning voters, and NC at a solidly 52% R/ 48% D. Guess which one(s) Kerry would win, which one(s) Edwards would.

I say Kerry gets NH in the General, Edwards gets neither.