WI-2010/PPP: Republican challengers ahead of Gov. Doyle (D)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 06:36:40 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2010 Elections
  2010 Gubernatorial Election Polls
  WI-2010/PPP: Republican challengers ahead of Gov. Doyle (D)
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: WI-2010/PPP: Republican challengers ahead of Gov. Doyle (D)  (Read 6603 times)
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,172
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 15, 2009, 01:25:31 PM »

Scott Walker (R): 48%
Jim Doyle (D): 40%

Mark Neumann (R): 42%
Jim Doyle (D): 41%

34% Approve
60% Disapprove

PPP surveyed 580 Wisconsin voters on June 9th and 10th. The survey’s margin of error is +/-4.1%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_WI_615.pdf

Research 2000 for DailyKos was showing something completely different some time ago:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=97321.0

But with these approvals, I'm more likely to believe PPP than R2000 ...
Logged
Rowan
RowanBrandon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,692


Political Matrix
E: 1.94, S: 4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2009, 03:27:23 PM »

R2000's result was way out there. You don't lead by 12%(and get 48% support) if your approval is in the 30's.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,541


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2009, 05:14:05 PM »

If this poll is correct, then Democrats could be down to very few governorships after 2010.  This will be very bad for party organization for the 2012 and 2016 elections and will give Republicans a greater pool of national candidates.  This is what hurt Democrats from the 1990's up until 2006 at the national level. 
Logged
Vepres
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,032
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 15, 2009, 06:04:03 PM »

If this poll is correct, then Democrats could be down to very few governorships after 2010.

This is very bizarre, as Democrats are doing relatively well on the national level. I was also reading that Colorado Governor Ritter, a moderate, was down 7 points to his likely challenger Scott McInnis. Could the negative views of many Democratic governors hurt congressional Democrats?
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2009, 06:14:13 PM »

If this poll is correct, then Democrats could be down to very few governorships after 2010.

This is very bizarre, as Democrats are doing relatively well on the national level. I was also reading that Colorado Governor Ritter, a moderate, was down 7 points to his likely challenger Scott McInnis. Could the negative views of many Democratic governors hurt congressional Democrats?

Its the damn economy forcing unpopular budget cuts and tax hikes on Governors. I said a few months ago that in big states especially that this could hurt incumbents even supposedly safe ones like Strickland in OH, who is currently considered Safe D but hey Ritter was supposed to be safe also. I didn't know McInnis was running in 2010 for anything? I hasd hoped he would run for the Senate.
Logged
Nhoj
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,224
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.52, S: -7.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2009, 09:01:28 PM »

R2000's result was way out there. You don't lead by 12%(and get 48% support) if your approval is in the 30's.
his approval was about 40% in that poll i think.
Logged
sg0508
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,053
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 16, 2009, 11:22:48 AM »

Incumbents always rally though.  Consider the fact that the GOP is likely not to win the MI seat despite the hell that state is in.  That's pretty pathetic.  They also haven't won diddly in WI in a long time. 

In these bluish, yet winnable states, the GOP just cannot win anything, good economy, bad economy, corruption, no corruption.  It says something about the party as a whole.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 16, 2009, 08:01:30 PM »

Incumbents always rally though.  Consider the fact that the GOP is likely not to win the MI seat despite the hell that state is in.  That's pretty pathetic.  They also haven't won diddly in WI in a long time. 

In these bluish, yet winnable states, the GOP just cannot win anything, good economy, bad economy, corruption, no corruption.  It says something about the party as a whole.

We will see. I would disagree with your statement that we can't win Michigan. I am confident that MI, WI and PA will all have GOP Governors in 2011. The Republicans held the Governorship of Wisconsin as recently as 2002 and the held both houses of the state legislature till 2006. Bush came within a hairsbreath of winning the state in 2004 and the only reason McCain got trounced is he didn't have the money to compete in the state so he abandoned depressing turnout in the rural areas. what would have been a 53-47 defeat turned into a landslide for Obama, same thing happened in Michigan. In the 1980's Wisconsin hadn't elected a Republican in ages then Tommy Thompson won election and held the Governorship for I think 4 terms. In both these states the parties are in relatively good shape When compared to states like NY and ILL where the GOP has almost disappeared. They still are within striking distance of the legislature, the GOP has the opportunity to seize the Governorships and finally they are relatively close each Presidential election when the GOP actually contests them like in 2004.
Logged
sg0508
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,053
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 16, 2009, 10:01:10 PM »

We thought we had the state won in 04 as Bush was outpolling Kerry consistently and then we lost it on Election Day. 

You can't point back to the 80s or 90s.  The party is different now and the circumstances have changed.  We don't appeal anymore to moderate voters (me) and you need some of those to win the purple/bluish states.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 16, 2009, 10:14:20 PM »

We thought we had the state won in 04 as Bush was outpolling Kerry consistently and then we lost it on Election Day. 

You can't point back to the 80s or 90s.  The party is different now and the circumstances have changed.  We don't appeal anymore to moderate voters (me) and you need some of those to win the purple/bluish states.

Actually we weren't consistently leading, basically at the end both WI and IA were tied one went to Bush the other to Kerry. There was also a significant grassroots organization among the urban poor that helped Kerry in the state. We are not shut out of WI, MI or PA. Its harder now yes, but moderates/independents will still vote Republican in local races. Remember 2006 was a wave election year so the Governors races that year especially in the last month swung hard to Dems as the GOP collapsed with the Foley scandle destroying there August/September recovery. Plus this is a midterm for a Dem administration meaning that you might not see a populist wave against the GOP due there incumbency that now no longer exists.
Logged
Vepres
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,032
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 17, 2009, 11:33:10 AM »
« Edited: June 17, 2009, 11:36:20 AM by Vepres »

I didn't know McInnis was running in 2010 for anything? I had hoped he would run for the Senate.

Ditto.

It's a shame really, because now we have no strong well known Republicans to challenge Bennet, who should be very weak.

We thought we had the state won in 04 as Bush was outpolling Kerry consistently and then we lost it on Election Day. 

You can't point back to the 80s or 90s.  The party is different now and the circumstances have changed.  We don't appeal anymore to moderate voters (me) and you need some of those to win the purple/bluish states.

Actually we weren't consistently leading, basically at the end both WI and IA were tied one went to Bush the other to Kerry. There was also a significant grassroots organization among the urban poor that helped Kerry in the state. We are not shut out of WI, MI or PA. Its harder now yes, but moderates/independents will still vote Republican in local races. Remember 2006 was a wave election year so the Governors races that year especially in the last month swung hard to Dems as the GOP collapsed with the Foley scandle destroying there August/September recovery. Plus this is a midterm for a Dem administration meaning that you might not see a populist wave against the GOP due there incumbency that now no longer exists.

Yes. The GOP must refine and tweak it's message to appeal to suburbanites. If they can do that, these states are very winnable.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 17, 2009, 11:36:53 AM »

Yep, McInnis is running for Governor. I hope he gives it up and runs for the Senate though.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 17, 2009, 06:03:56 PM »

Yep, McInnis is running for Governor. I hope he gives it up and runs for the Senate though.

He already passed up the Senate though so I doubt it will happen. He should have ran in 2004.
Logged
MasterJedi
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,526
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 01, 2009, 06:48:32 PM »

I'm not holding my breath on this poll. But maybe people are finally realizing Doyle hasn't done anything in 8 years in office and has screwed up the budget and the deficit even worse than when he took office?

I'm supporting Walker but both would be good Governors. Just anybody but Doyle.
Logged
Wiz in Wis
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,711


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 01, 2009, 08:22:39 PM »

I'd actually be surprised if Doyle ran for a third term... he's been none too coy about wanting a position in the Obama administration...

This will be moot if he leaves... Lawton is a blank slate and would probably win the primary uncontested. Then Walker wouldn't have much of a lead... if any.
Logged
pogo stick
JewishConservative
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,429
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 01, 2009, 09:14:21 PM »



I'm supporting Walker but both would be good Governors. Just anybody but Doyle. or Tommy Thompson
Logged
MasterJedi
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,526
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 01, 2009, 09:48:50 PM »



I'm supporting Walker but both would be good Governors. Just anybody but Doyle. or Tommy Thompson

Actually I'd prefer him to anyone.
Logged
The Dowager Mod
texasgurl
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,969
United States


Political Matrix
E: -9.48, S: -8.57

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 15, 2009, 05:46:59 PM »

Walker would be a decent pick for the Republicans.
Logged
pogo stick
JewishConservative
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,429
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 21, 2009, 05:27:55 PM »



I'm supporting Walker but both would be good Governors. Just anybody but Doyle. or Tommy Thompson

I'm not to fond of Thompson.

His Jewish comments in 2008 pissed me off.

Actually I'd prefer him to anyone.
Logged
Alexander Hamilton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,167
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: -5.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 23, 2009, 09:31:21 PM »

Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit whoever wins is likely to be the GOP's best shot at taking Herb or Russ' seat.
Logged
SamInTheSouth
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 389


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 02, 2009, 05:47:41 PM »

Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit whoever wins is likely to be the GOP's best shot at taking Herb or Russ' seat.

I like Russ Feingold, but Herb Kohl sucks.  He needs to go.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.046 seconds with 14 queries.