Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: Rasmussen Montana


Rasmussen Reports
7/3/08 - 500 LV, 4.5

Montana
Obama 48, McCain 43

 

Comments
FleetAdmiralJ:

Now I wonder if anyone will do a poll in North Dakota to see if there is a similar trend there. If so, maybe Obama should go after Idaho and see if he can win every state bordering Canada, heh.

____________________

Mike_in_CA:

this poll is not as incredible as it seems. For some reason, the West loves Obama, and really isn't pleased with McCain. While the West isn't exactly Bush/McCain's brand of neoconservatism, it certainly isn't Obama's brand of pseudo-progressivism either. That said, Montana has three stellar Democrats in state-wide positions and held a much-publicized primary in June! This may be a post-primary bump, but it's probably a bump that isn't going to fade anytime soon considering how less-visited Montana is (Obama is going to be there on Friday).

Personally, I have always considered Montana on my own personal "electoral map," and I think 2008 is as good a year as any before to flip it. We'll see.

____________________

1magine:

Montana? Montana...Montana? Uhmm ok. Maybe five thirtyeight is correct - we need polling in ND & SD. They said that on election day they would not rely on any single state. They said they were going to go into every state and make the case for unifying change. I was not sure I bought it as more than rhetorical flourish. I need to study the crosstabs, but this is interesting, even if it is only 500 likely voters v. larger sample of registered voters. Though for a state with their population, that is an ok sample.

____________________

Undecided:

Notably the three elected Democrats in Montana are conservative and not liberal like Obama. There is a liberal enclave in Missoula. And most Native peoples vote Democrat. Maybe Montana will actually prevent Indian voter intimidation and voting right infringements this election year.


The Montana poll results do not indicate that the West "really isn't pleased with McCain."

Favorable: McCain 58% to Obama 57%

____________________

mago:

Keep in mind that Clinton won Montana in '92, so it's not a deep-red state in the same way as WY, ID, or UT. Obama might actually have a better shot there than in Nevada, where people seem oddly apathetic about him.

____________________

desirous:

Clinton got the same vote percentage as Kerry, who lost by 20% against Bush. He won because of Ross Perot.

____________________

killias2:

"Keep in mind that Clinton won Montana in '92, so it's not a deep-red state in the same way as WY, ID, or UT. Obama might actually have a better shot there than in Nevada, where people seem oddly apathetic about him."

While you're right to an extent, I don't understand why people keep bringing up '92 as though it was a normal electoral year. There were three major candidates, and Perot split Bush's support in half.

In 1992, in Montana, Clinton got 37.63% of the vote, Bush got 35.12%, and Perot got 26.12%. Considering Clinton's southern background and his centrist appeal, 1992 situation hardly correlates with 2008.

Obama is known to be liberal. Nobody is going to take half of McCain's base. Regardless, Obama is still ahead. That is big news.

(If you're curious, Clinton lost Montana in 1996 despite having more of the vote overall and being incredibly popular. Dole got 44.11%, Clinton - 41.23%, Perot - 13.56%)

____________________

carl29:

The Republican Rasmussen has Obama up in Montana? OMG!!!

____________________

Undecided:

Regarding Clinton... Probably could have won Montana in 1996 if the Native American vote had not been suppressed. Historical problems in Montana with that issue.

Also looks like Perot took votes away from both Republican and Democrat in Montana. I think it is a fallacy that Perot only took away GOP votes. Think "conservative Democrats."

____________________

mago:

Well, desirous, of course Perot was a factor but Clinton didn't win any of the other states I named, even with Perot in the race.

Perot's strength in MT is a sign of the state's preference for outsiders, which is quite relevant to the current race.

____________________

David_T:

Polls (including exit polls) in 1992 showed that Perot drew his vote about equally from people who would have been Bush voters, people who would have been Clinton voters, and people who would not have voted at all (Perot may have been one reason turnout was up in 1992, bucking the long-run tenedency for it to decline).

Of course the sources of Perot's support varied from state to state. He did well both in the "conservative" West and in the "liberal" Northeast (especially New England) and it is certainly plausible that *in Montana* his vote enabled Clinton to carry the state. What I object to, though, is the tendency of those who denigrate Clinton's 1992 victory to assume that it was only Perot who made it possible. There is considerable evidence against that--not only the polls (and remember that Clinton was leading in them *before* Perot re-enetered the race) but the fact that the Democrats easily won the Congressional elections in 1992 (with only a small loss of seats in the House, and that due mostly to redistricting and the House Bank scandal) which would be puzzling if the Bush/Perot vote was a conservative monolith. (Moreover, Perot's support declined drastically in 1996, yet that doesn't seem to have helped Dole at all--though again Montana is an exception.)

____________________

killias2:

I mentioned myself that Clinton had a centrist and southern appeal, which is a big difference between him and Obama. Obama does well in Montana despite being popularly considered very liberal and despite acknowledgment of his foreign and northern urban roots. That's huge.

Regardless, I'll admit that Perot took some votes from both parties, but I really don't think Clinton would've won a lot of the question mark states without Perot on the ticket. 1996 was different because: A. Dole was a -terrible- candidate. B. Clinton was a very popular president. Still, Dole managed to win in Montana despite Clinton getting more electoral votes in '96 than in '92. I don't think Perot's smaller vote percentages should be ignored when it comes to factoring Montana in '92 vs. Montana in '96.

____________________

onelightonvoice:

Nice poll going into the long weekend. Obama is in Montana this Friday.....and where is McCain? Oh yeah, Mexico. Proabably fund-raising out there.....


I hear the subtle rumblings of the impending landslide.....

____________________

rdw4potus:

Y'all seem to be confused about Rasmussen Reports. Rasmussen is a non-partisan polster. Just because they take Fox's money doesn't make them Republican...just capitalist.

____________________

carl29:

"Y'all seem to be confused about Rasmussen Reports. Rasmussen is a non-partisan polster. Just because they take Fox's money doesn't make them Republican...just capitalist."

Is Rasmussen on the GOP side?

"Scott Rasmussen, an Independent-leaning-REPUBLICAN public opinion pollster, is the founder and CEO of Rasmussen Reports. He also co-founded the sports network ESPN, and is currently president of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association."

Scott Rasmussen is an EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN and is president of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a not-for-profit corporation with historic ties to the United Methodist Church and the Wesleyan tradition. The Camp Meeting founded the town of Ocean Grove, New Jersey in 1869 and maintains a Christian seaside resort community providing opportunities for spiritual birth, growth, and renewal. His slogan for the 2006 Annual Camp Meeting was 'IN THE REDEMPTION BUSINESS.'

Umm.... I don't know you but this sounds pretty conservative to me.

____________________

C.S.Strowbridge:

Ummm.... Outlier?

I find this poll very hard to believe and I will require further evidence before I conclude Montana is really in play.

____________________

C.S.Strowbridge:

"Umm.... I don't know you but this sounds pretty conservative to me."

And I think most independent people will agree that Rasmussen's poll numbers tend to lean slightly to the GOP end.

Not a lot, but it is there.

____________________

brambster:

Montana's conservatives do not generally identify with southern conservativism which dominates the Republican party. They tend to be much more libertarian than the norm, and they don't feel nearly as tied to their party as people in other areas of the country do. It's no mistake that the state now has a Democratic governor and two senators, and they are all very well liked in that state. North Dakota likewise has a Democrat as for both senators and their representative. This isn't just by chance. His polling in Alaska also shows the same sort of potential.

Obama did very well in big sky country over Hillary because Hillary's message didn't resinate with them, and Hillary's message of being a tough experienced leader is the same sort of campaign that McCain is waging.

Obama has a very good chance in these states so long as the election doesn't become more personal than it is substantive. Montana does want a change, and it has been making that happen for the past 2 election cycles.

____________________

brambster:

It's not that Rasmussen's bias automatically favors Republicans, but their methods come from a mindset that is influenced by their leanings.

It's probably their heavier party ID weighting that does this. Most democratic pollsters are against party ID weighting. In fact there are many that don't even use likely voter samples because they generally undercount the leanings of the general public and might complain that it serves to suppress voters from turning out if they think they are going to lose. That would be the opposite bias of course.

Rasmussen's party ID weighting therefore seems to become a self fulfilling prophecy in many cases.

I don't see that what Rasmussen does with IVR technology is so different from the others, it's what they do to bring those numbers inline that causes issues, and of course they have a wider variance on state polls because of their very small sample, leading some to overreact to an individual poll (outliers are more memorable of course).

I would be curious to see what would happen if you took Rasmussen's raw data and applied it to a SurveyUSA method. My guess is that you would probably get results inline with SurveyUSA and not so much Rasmussen. SurveyUSA does not weight for party ID, but they do screen for likely voters, and those methods are likey unique to each and could also have bias, though bias that may go from one end of the spectrum to another depending on the state and the exact timing of the poll.

____________________

Paul:

MT. carries three electoral votes, and for whatever reason, Obama was more popular there than Clinton. In addition to CA, WA, and OR, four additional states appear in play for Obama: MT, CO, NV, and NM. This is the first post-primary poll in MT. The polls conducted between McCain and Obama during the primary season resulted in McCain + 8, 5, 8. Colorado with 9 electoral votes combined with at least one state from MT, NV or NM would be a solid result.

____________________

cinnamonape:

I wonder if it can be called an outlier...after all, Rassmussen did an earlier poll that had just the opposite results. Same methodology and sample size (which is not insubstantial in a state the size and demographics of Montana).

Given that the SE is 4.5 and the turnaround is 10% one would have to argue some very odd things to accept that this was the result of sampling error. Both polls would have to be extreme outliers (from a dead-heat race) and even then we're talking about measures that would be about 1/400 pairwise samples.

This certainly is an interesting result for both candidates to consider. I suspect that it might suggest that some Montanans don't consider McCain as much of an "Washington outsider" as his team wants.

BTW Does anyone else have an issue with asking about possible VP candidates without also including whether such a pairing would actually result in a change from neutral (or "support the other candidate") to "support". It would seem to me that many of those who support McCain might respond that Obama should select Hillary Clinton as a running mate because it would, in their view, weaken his ability to win in November. So when one asks the question in this way it may muddle together those that actually support a Obama-Clinton ticket, with those that would support McCain whoever Obama selects as a running mate.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR