Reply #157: yeesh, I should have asked you more qq months ago

[OnTheOtherHand]

(The exit polls themselves tended to err toward the partisanship of the state -- not to change the subject back to that.)

I'm not surprised at all that Alaska has red PAN, but I never tried to figure it out. The 'debate' over possible fraud in Alaska in 2004 has been... oh, never mind. Anyway, it would be interesting to compare your PANs with E/M's priors and see whether you have independently come to similar conclusions about how to adjust pre-election polls. (Not that this would matter in AK.)

Yes, indeed, cheerleading and analysis don't go well together. I'm not at all giddy about 2006. A few points I would press you on, but we have months to sort them out. I agree that the generics don't mean much given that Democratic is still not thriving as a brand. (And what I've seen so far certainly supports your view that the Dems are predisposed to do best in governorships.)

I would qualify the "all but ignore Bush and the Republicans" bit -- call me old-fashioned, but I think challengers do need to run against incumbents to some extent! Nevertheless, 2004 should underscore that running up incumbent negatives doesn't guarantee victory if the incumbents can run up your negatives, too.

I'm reluctant to think of white women as a "voting block," much less "the only voting block that matters right now." I'm inclined to agree with anaxarchos that the "security mom" theme is overrated. Dunno, to some extent it's a cognitive bias: I rebel against anything that sounds like a monocausal theory. Security issues are huge for the Dems no matter what block(s) one ties them to. (I don't think they will benefit the Reps in 2006 in the way they did in 2002, but I am also thinking further down the road.)