Thursday, October 16, 2008
New NM Rasmussen Polls: Obama Up By 13, Tom Udall Up By 20
New Rassmussen polling is encouraging indeed.
U.S. Senate race in New Mexico: Tom Udall 57% - Steve Pearce 37%. Two weeks ago it was Udall up 55-41%.
Udall earns favorable reviews from 64% of the state’s voters, up eight points from the previous survey. Pearce gets positive ratings from 43%, unchanged over the past two weeks. Udall attracts support from 88% of Democrats and enjoys a two-to-one advantage over Pearce among unaffiliated voters. Pearce is now supported by just 75% of Republicans, down from 82% earlier.
And after Udall's strong showing in last night's debate with Pearce on KOB-TV (video here and more on debate at Udall blog), I wouldn't be surprised if Tom's lead stays in double-digit terroritory until November 4.
Presidential race in NM: Obama 55% - McCain 42%. As in other former swing states that are turning more Blue by the day, Obama's lead has expanded dramatically over the past two weeks, when Rasmussen had Obama up by five points, 49-44%. The victory train is about to leave the station and McCain's not on it:
Overall, Obama is viewed favorably by 59% of New Mexico voters, McCain by 54%. However, 46% of New Mexico voters have a Very Favorable opinion of Obama while just 28% say the same about McCain. Twenty-seven percent (27%) have a Very Unfavorable opinion of Obama and 29% view McCain that negatively. McCain and Obama are essentially even among white voters while the Democrat has a 17-point lead among Hispanic voters. Obama leads by 15 among women but trails by eight among men.
And how about this regarding the Obama's up-trends nationally:
Currently, Obama has the edge in every state won by John Kerry in 2004. Of the states won by Bush that year, McCain is trailing in four, and five others are considered toss-ups. As a result, Electoral College projections now show Obama leading 255-163. When “leaners” are included, Obama leads 300-174. A total of 270 Electoral Votes are needed to win the White House.
We can't let up, but we can imagine! Say it with me: 19 days!
The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do state-by-state, but that we shouldn't have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote -- that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes-- 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
Posted by: susan | Oct 16, 2008 5:28:28 PM
That's an interesting idea but it brings its own problems. If the winner was based only on total votes nationally the candidates would spend all their time in big population centers and nobody would ever visit small towns, rural areas or big states with few people like New Mexico. Their entire campaign would be in cities like NYC and LA.
Posted by: Old Dem | Oct 17, 2008 8:17:02 AM
As opposed to the current system where candidates spend the vast majority of there time in toss up states? Texas isn't politically relevant to Obama similar to how Maine isn't; Obama won't win Texas so why visit, and Obama obviously has Maine, so why visit?
Everyone having an equal vote only makes sense. Why should a Californian have only half the say of a New Mexican, when California would be the 6th largest economy in the world on its own? They have far more to gain and lose than we do.
Posted by: Tyler | Oct 25, 2008 10:21:48 PM
Well it's not that you don't get a vote. You just don't get visited much.
Posted by: KL | Oct 26, 2008 4:59:24 AM