FL-PPP: Scott stinks to high heaven

[Keystone Phil]

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.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

[Keystone Phil]

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. 

[Keystone Phil]

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.

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

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This has gotten completely asinine now.

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.

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.

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

[Keystone Phil]

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

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.

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

...

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

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.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

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.

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.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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!

[Keystone Phil]

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.

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.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

[Keystone Phil]

Taft's wasn't particularly unpopular in 2004, so the comparison is weak at best.

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.

[Keystone Phil]

Taft's wasn't particularly unpopular in 2004, so the comparison is weak at best.

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.

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 - leads me to believe that he was pretty damn unpopular in the middle of 2004.