Talk Elections

Do you approve of Rick Scott's job as Governor?

Yes- 33%
No- 59%

If the 2014 election were between Republican Rick Scott and Democrat Charlie Crist, who would you support?

Crist- 56%
Scott- 34%

If you could re-do the 2010 election between Republican Rick Scott and Democrat Alex Sink, who would you support?

Sink-57%
Scott- 35%

Do you think that Charlie Crist should switch to the Democratic party?

Yes- 43%
No- 26%

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/06/scott-now-tops-in-unpopularity.html

Who would have thought that electing a convicted felon isn't such a good idea after all?

lol, Florida, you stupid or somethin

Flo. Rida. Gump:  Stupid is as stupid does sir.

If Crist made a comeback, it'd be the ultimate Lazarus moment.

Rick Scott's not going to run for re-election. He's just going to steal as much money as he can for himself and his friends and get out after his four years are done.

Yes, but Connecticut's governor is unpopular, too.

Not this unpopular.

Definitely saw this coming. What a scumbag of a guy to deal with.

I wonder StatesRights thinks of Mr. Scott.

If 2014 isn't a good year for the Florida Democrats....

Alex Sink probably would have won had she not taken out her cell phone in that one debate. Why again did Scott beat McCollum in the primary? The guy has serious ethic issues that I'm surprised he hasn't been prosecuted for.

Don't know who you're talking about.  Are you referring to this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Siplin)?

As long as Scott is pro-Confederacy, he'll love him.


I love you too wormy.

MCCOLLLUMM IZ MODERAT ESTABLUSHMENT RINO!!!!!!   SCOTT IS TRU TEABAG AMERIKAN!

The pollsters have been afraid to poll the state to expose his unpopularity.

Quinnipiac June15, 2011
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Dannel Malloy is handling his job as Governor?
Approve            38%
Disapprove       44%
DK/NA               18%

A -6 approval rating is a far cry from -26 approval rating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony)

lol I knew this would happen.  Obama will simply tie the GOP Presidential candidate to Gov. Scott in 2012.

One of the dumbest talked up "strategies" ever. Obama will win or lose Florida based on Floridians' views on him.

Yeah, no one votes against someone in Florida.

If this is meant as a sarcastic response to my point, I was saying that no one is going to vote against a candidate for President based on their views of their Governor. I think that was pretty obvious.

Er, yeah, no one is gonna be voting against Rick Scott. But they can enter the polling booth to vote against the Republican candidate if Obama successfully convinces them that he or she will implement similar policies as Rick Scott? geez

::)

Yes, I realize no one will be going in to vote against Rick Scott because he isn't on the ballot. Thanks for the reminder though.

Obama's re-election will be, like every re-election, a referendum on the incumbent. The President isn't going to actively tie his opponent to Scott. It just doesn't work that way. He will attack policies that might be unpopular and advanced by a Republican nominee but I'd be shocked if he made "So and so is just like Governor Scott!" a major selling point. 

He did it for Bush, so he might do it again? I don't know why you vehemently think that Obama won't tie his opponent to unpopular incumbents. The Republicans will probably invoke unpopular incumbents too, like Bev Perdue, in their campaign stops too.

If that is the case then many politicians are quite dumb because that strategy has been used many times before.  Perhaps you have simply not noticed.

Ok, here's a minor difference: Bush was the incumbent President.

 
This has gotten completely asinine now.



Point to one example of an incumbent President using an unpopular incumbent Governor of a state as a major campaign talking point.

From PPP's poll:

Scott’s standing is so poor that 40% of this swing state’s voters say his actions as
governor will make them less likely to support the Republicans’ presidential nominee
next year. Only 26% say they will make them more likely. Most crucially, independents
say by a 45-18 margin that Scott has turned them off from GOP candidates in general.

You're so asinine!

LOL, if you think that the White House will not try to use Gov. Scott's massive unpopularity to their advantage, then there is no point in discussing it further.  And Obama is already criticizing Scott even before the campaign has really begun:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/obama-criticizes-rick-sco_n_837962.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/obama-criticizes-rick-sco_n_837962.html)


What do the GOP Presidential candidates think about Gov. Scott's decision?

Here's also a minor piece of information: Scott is the incumbent Governor in an important swing state.

I don't even know why I'm debating this. So stupid. ::) As you've seen by Ogre Mage's post, he's already bashing on him, and the rhetoric is only gonna increase on the campaign trail. It's like you want something to be true so bad that you won't have it any other way.

There's a difference between criticizing a Governor and making him a major talking point when you're President of the United States. The latter won't happen.



...

What isn't sinking in for you? This isn't a Gubernatorial election. Being the incumbent Governor in an important swing state isn't going tip the state one way or the other. You're not grasping that these two offices are on different levels and the President isn't going to seriously punch down at a Governor he isn't running against in the election.


No, that sounds like you guys because you have yet to provide a single example of a President using an incumbent Governor of a state as a major talking point during the campaign despite the fact that you said this has been done plenty of times before.

Wow! Scott is so bad that 26% are more likely to vote for a Republican for President? Very compelling data! You guys definitely proved me wrong on this one.

I'll respect the fact that we are friends and won't put this post into the Goldmine.

Anyone ready for Crist 2014?

:)

Minus the 40% less like to vote Republican leaves a net 14% of the state less likely to vote GOP due to Scott's performance. Not to mention a net 27% of all-important independents being generally turned off to voting Republican out of fears they'll govern like Scott.

While its silly to just ignore the simple math presented, one can reasonably argue whether Scott's deep unpopularity--assuming it even lasts through next November--will translate to Republicans in federal races, particularly one as high profile as Obama's re-election bid, rather than simply hurt GOP races for FL state office (legislature, Attorney General, etc.).

I'm still waiting for the explanation as to why the ever-so-unpopular Scott has 26% of people more likely to vote for the GOP nominee. And you can't chalk that up to Republican hacks. They'd simply (and correctly) answer that Scott's performance has absolutely no impact on how they'll vote for President. It will be the same case for voters in 2012.

I'm not arguing that the math is wrong; I'm arguing that it's a bogus thought that people will vote for President based on their feelings on Scott. It's such a deeply flawed strategy and question for a poll.


I just have to thank God that the evil Governor Bob Taft didn't keep Bush from winning Ohio in 2004. W. got really lucky on that one!

27% of Illinoinans voted Alan Keyes back in 2004. I guess those Scott admirers are the same kind of people: hardcore, far-right wingers who would be willing to vote Charles Manson, as long as he has an R next to his name.
 

You're misunderstanding my point. This poll states that 26% of people are more likely to vote for the Republican Presidential nominee because of Rick Scott. This isn't about 26% of people liking Scott so save your "Scott is obviously horrible but those dumb Republicans will like him anyway!" bit for another thread.

My point is that even the biggest of hacks - and, for the sake of this argument, we'll say that they approve of Governor Scott - would say that Rick Scott's performance has no difference on how they will vote for President.

If someone asked me if I approve of Senator Casey and then asked if my feelings on Senator Casey would mean I'm more or less likely to vote for President Obama, I'd sanely tell them that it makes no difference.

I truly don't understand why this is a controversial point to make. When a party is in some level of government and is unpopular, it can usually lead to voters disliking that party beyond just one specific area, especially in traditional swing states like Florida. I don't think that Obama can just come in a run against Scott directly, or anything, but having a deeply disliked and unpopular Governor certainly advantages Obama and the Democrats in general.

I realize this is slightly unrelated, but when I was watching the Canadian election, where were some of the weakest areas of NDP gains, or where did they underperform in comparison to other areas? Where they were in government and slightly unpopular, people were not as enthusiastic as other provinces in supporting federal NDP candidates. This sort of stuff is common sense and often translates into a bleeding effect on other levels of elections.

Why does Scott make some voters more likely to vote for a Republican candidate? I sure as hell don't know. As others have said you're probably down to the really uninformed voters or the hardest of the hardcore. But the central point of what Badger, or Holmes, or Px75 are arguing makes perfect sense. A deeply unpopular Republican governor would obviously not help Republican prospects in that state. Duh.

I never said he would help (except for this mysterious 26% of the population); I'm saying that people aren't going to vote against the Republican Presidential nominee because of Scott.

Phil has a point, but a partial one. The fact that 26% say Scott makes them more likely to vote for the Republican shows there's a certain partisan baseline in the results here from people who would vote for their party's candidate anyway and want to brag about it.

But the fact that it's 40% in Florida for the Dem, vs. 26% for the Republican, is more than enough to cause concern for Republicans. Florida does not have an electorate that is 40% foaming-at-the-mouth Dem.

Because I hate this question when I am polled, if the democrat governor in my state is unpopular (an we have had a couple recently) I always say he makes me more likely to vote for a democratic presidential candidate, even though it really makes no difference to me.   

I'm not sure we can say how independent voters will act as they are a notoriously fickle group.  But I would not overlook the possibility Scott could have a negative impact in a federal race.  Let's say the GOP candidate(s) said they agreed with Scott's decision to kill Obama's high speed rail plan.  How would independent voters in Tampa and Orlando react to that information?  Perhaps that alone might not be enough to swing the vote but eventually there very well could be a tipping point.  Much will depend on the identity of the GOP candidate, how he or she runs the campaign and the degree to which the candidate chooses to distance himself or herself from Gov. Scott.

Conservative voters will obviously not vote for Obama.  But if the governor's performance continues as it is, I wonder how motivated to vote they will be.

In any case, whether or not the attacks on Scott actually work, they will definitely continue.  I already posted Obama's remarks on Scott's high speed rail decision.  And just today Bill Clinton says:

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/bill-clinton-calls-out-rick-scott-ex-felon-voting-rights (http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/bill-clinton-calls-out-rick-scott-ex-felon-voting-rights)

Taft's wasn't particularly unpopular in 2004, so the comparison is weak at best. Also, if you stopped ranting for a moment you might notice I was somewhat agreeing with your point.

As usual, Brittain makes the point most concisely and incisively. I'd further add to his point that missing in the "debate" during the last two pages of thread is the particularly telling---and should be concerning to the FL GOP---45-18 less/more likely to vote GOP because of Scott among independents.

Again, how much that'll translate to the presidential election as opposed to (e.g.) a state senate race is debatable.

Of course other Republican politicians in the state are on the reverse side of the coin fairly popular. I.e. Rubio, many of the Republicans elected to the House in November etc.

Taft had a 6.5% approval rating in November of 2005. I'm willing to bet he wasn't about 35% a year before that.

I did a Google search and couldn't find anything from before his ethics charges from which the number you quote stems from. If memory serves though, I believe he was hovering close to 50% mark around then. Not sure though. I certainly don't recall it being in the mid-30's a year before though.

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/03/04/loc_taft04.html

State Democratic Chairman Dennis White said the numbers show Ohioans have lost confidence in their governor and are angry about the state's finances. That could hurt Republicans at all levels in 2004, including President Bush, who needs to win Ohio.

"You've had the voters in Ohio filled with lies for the last two years," White said. "I think they'll take it out on all the Republicans."



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24824-2004Aug22.html

Taft said he is close to former president George H.W. Bush and graduated from Yale five years ahead of the current president. He is a pragmatic moderate in the old style of Ohio Republicans, but this understated style has not kept him out of trouble in recent years. His approval rating last year sank to 40 percent or lower; in an Ohio Poll earlier this year it had inched back up to 47 percent -- still not good enough to make him much of a drawing card on Bush's behalf.

Whatever terms you entered for your search worked better than mine. ;)

So in August 04 Taft was reported to be at 47% approval "earlier that year". Sounds about right, IIRC. Again, Phil, to my memoryTaft only became notably unpopular (and then downright toxic) after 04. So the analogy doesn't hold.

The article said that he had a 47% approval rating in August of 2004. Who knows how low it could have gotten by the time the campaign heated up? It had to have plummeted even lower pretty quickly if he was in the single digits by late 2005.

And this thread - https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=6077.0 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=6077.0) - leads me to believe that he was pretty damn unpopular in the middle of 2004.

Another poll out by a GOP company shows Scott below 30%:

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Rick Scott is doing as Governor?

27% Approve
58% Disapprove

"The one difference between Scott and Corbett is that Scott has alienated more in his own party, since GOP voters give him only a 48-34 approval rating, while a solid majority of Pennsylvania Republicans still approve of Corbett," Lee reported. Florida's Democrats and independents disapprove of Scott’s job by 83-7 and 59-21 margins, respectively.

http://sunshinestatenews.com/story/gov-rick-scott-tough-road-reform

I wasn't around in 2004 but I vaguely remember that Taft became REALLY unpopular during autumn 2005 when the Coingate scandal erupted and some of his closest advisers were indicted for fraud. I don't remember Taft's popularity (or lack thereof) to be a major campaign issue during the 2004 presidential race.

Even so, 2004 was one of those rare elections where Ohio was less Republican than the country at large, so maybe Taft was already starting to drag down with him the entire party.

Ah yeah, Bob Taft, I remember this guy. Here´s the monthly SurveyUSA tracker for him:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=18f2a510-9587-44b7-95e2-f0137b64d865

:P

I'm with Phil on this one. The popularity of Governors is very weakly correlated with presidential performance, if at all.

I know of only one heavy-weight pundit supporting this theory. He has a reputation for pushing controversial theories such as the major air-hub theory though.

This somewhat pertains to Scott, but a recent Sunshine State News poll found that Crist's favorable rating is 40, while his unfavorable rating is 33. Which is surprisingly higher than Marco Rubio's 38-34 favorable/unfavorable rating.

In some other Charlie news:

Crist is being honored by the league of woman voters today for his accomplishments in restoring felon voting rights. It's a fundraiser for the group.

Also, Crist is featured in new ads from Morgan & Morgan(law firm he works for) thanking teachers and policemen for their service.