October 16, 2004

GO FOR WA TOO:

Bush up by 5% in Oregon (THE RILEY REPORT TM: Oregon Likely Voter Poll, 10/14/04, Riley Research)

President George Bush appears to have built a five-point lead over Senator John Kerry, leading 48 to 43 percent, while about 4 percent of voters are undecided and 4 percent would vote for someone else (Ralph Nader received just one percent of the vote).

This is an increase for Bush from our September poll, which had the candidates virtually even (46% Bush vs. 45% Kerry). While Bush captures 87 percent of Republicans, Kerry gets just 80 percent of Democrats, and splits the votes of the independent and minority party candidates.

Bush captures 54 percent of men (vs. 43% of women), while Kerry gets a higher percent of women (48%), but only 37 percent of the men.


Posted by Orrin Judd at October 16, 2004 9:24 AM
Comments

This is another state where California emigrants fleeing high taxes and crime will make a difference. The war is trumping Bush's conservative stance on social issues, which is a sure loser in Oregon.

Posted by: Bart at October 16, 2004 11:35 AM

California's taxes are high, but with our 3 strikes law crime is very low; burglary is the lowest it has been since 1957 even though we have three times the population. (Vote NO on Proposition 66.)

I agree that Oregon will most likely go for Kerry; however, Oregon will be voting on two controversial issues: gay marriage and medical marijuana. If enough social conservatives go out to vote against these two initiatives, Bush might win; and if enough conservatives go out to vote for Bush, the two issues might just fail.

The point is Oregon will be interesting.

Posted by: Vince at October 16, 2004 12:56 PM

Correction. The gay marriage issue in Oregon is one that social conservatives support, so they want it to pass.

Posted by: Vince at October 16, 2004 1:02 PM

The Democrats will probably send John Edwards out there to tell the voters if John Kerry is elected, after he's through healing the infirmed and raising the dead, he'll stop the volcano from erupting and spreading ash clouds over the northern part of the state (which is a two-fer, since it would apply to southern Washington as well).

Posted by: John at October 16, 2004 2:21 PM

Just one poll but it poses an interesting choice for Bush. Does he make a play for Oregon, risking losing another state in the process (like in the midwest) or does he avoid it and lose a potential pickup that would be psychologically devastating to the Dems? I agree he should stop in WA not because he would win it but because it might help boost the GOP governor and senate candidates. We'll have to see what happens.

Posted by: AWW at October 16, 2004 2:27 PM

I heard that no Republican candidate has ever won the presidency without winning Ohio. The President should really concentrate on that state.

Posted by: Vince at October 16, 2004 2:42 PM

KerrySpot reports that Laura Bush visited Oregon yesterday.

Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at October 16, 2004 2:46 PM

Sorry, but as a former native, I don't see WA in play. Eastern WA, sure, but Seattle is solidly Democratic, as evidenced by Patty Murray's domination of George Nethercut.

Posted by: MikeB at October 16, 2004 4:06 PM

Castro's buddy, Nethercutt, is not a serious competitor. I received literature asking me to contribute to his campaign and because he led the latest moves to suck up to El Tirano, I absolutely refused. The SOB would have sent little Elian back in a crate with some lettuce.

Posted by: Bart at October 16, 2004 5:12 PM

"Castro's buddy, Nethercutt"

Citation, please. (Considering that I actually have a vote in that contest.)

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at October 17, 2004 12:15 AM

Almanac of American Politics 2004 p. 1695

'Assembling a coalition of free traders, left wingers sympathetic to Fidel Castro and farm state members eager to export local products, he became the leader of the successful House attempt in 2000 to end the food and drug embargo on Communist Cuba. The deal also expanded travel rights to Cuba by American grain and food exporters. Nethercutt called it "a fundamental shift in American foreign policy, and a new day for American agriculture." With the Bush White House firmly allied with the Cuban-American community in Florida, he was unable to expand the provision. But he welcomed the benefits secured under that law by Northwest apple and pea producers, and he criticized the approach of Cuban-American advocates:"They don't like anything to do with Fidel Castro, even if it helps Americans". After the September 11 attacks, the Bush Administration sought to include in its anti-terrorism package the repeal of a provision that Nethercutt had helped to enact a year earlier that made it difficult to include food or medicine in unilateral trade sanctions; when he and other farm state members objected, the proposal died.'

IOW, not only is Nethercutt a supporter of Castro but he considers anyone who would be more concerned with the lives of Cuban victims of Castro's terror than with whether some pea farmer in Spokane has a few extra shekels in his pocket to be 'anti-American.' I guess Cubans are just too swarthy for him to bother with.

He or his constituents, for whom it would appear that animal husbandry is not merely an academic exercise but a way of life, are so swinish that they would make it easy for Osama to get another fan belt for his dialysis machine, so long as they could sell him apple sauce too.

Posted by: Bart at October 17, 2004 3:15 AM

So what you are saying is that, on this particular issue, there's no choice as it sounds like one Patty the Dummy would hold (and for her, it would probably be a compromise from her real beliefs.) That is disappointing.

Interesting too that she hasn't brought it up, as it could be upsetting to his core. That she hasn't is just another indication of her true beliefs, and how bringing it up might lose her votes in McDermott's district, for example.

But on a wider range of issues, there are differences. Nethercutt won't be blindly supporting the Senate minority leader's filibusters, for example. Sorry, but I'm still going to have to vote for Patty's opponent, because I'm not loing to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Voting against someone by voting for his less desirable opponent who also probably supports that policy is to waste my vote.

(Besides, a Senator Nethercutt can be pursuaded by his GOP supporters to change his position for the better. Senator-for-Life Murray ain't ever going to listen to a conservative who objectes to the Cuban Beard.)

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at October 17, 2004 1:04 PM

I can appreciate that you feel a need to hold your nose and vote for the person nearest your beliefs.

If I were a Cuban-American, I would refrain from voting in this race. As a Jew, I would not vote for someone who would support expanding trade with Nazi Germany in the 30s. The sufferings of Cubans are not significantly different from those we endured in Europe in the 30s and 40s.

Nethercutt is like the despicable Chuck Hagel from Nebraska who is the poster boy for the old Lenin statement'We Will Sell You the Rope By Which You Hang Us.'

Posted by: Bart at October 17, 2004 6:22 PM
« FIRST STEP, ADMITTING YOU HAVE A PROBLEM: | Main | MEET THE NEXT MAYOR OF D.C.: »