Talk Elections

New Poll: Kansas Governor by Public Policy Polling on 2014-08-17 (https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/GOVERNOR/2014/polls.php?action=indpoll&id=2020140817108)

Summary: D: 39%, R: 37%, U: 15%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/PPP_Release_KS_819925.pdf)

Looks like Kansas is ready to flush Brownback down the toilet where he belongs.

He's now trailing by two when a poll last week or so showed him down over double digits and you think it looks like he'll be flushed? Ok.

You're comparing apples and oranges (two different pollsters). The fact is, everybody besides YouGov has shown Davis in the lead.

Brownback will be in the lead by October. Get a grip.

Yeah, just like Santorum.

Lean D.

"You know, Russia is the largest country by land mass on the planet." - Phil
"JUST LYK SANTORUM WAS GONNA WIN, RITE PHIL?!1!1!" - unoriginal posters

Says the guy who thought Santorum was going to win

Ok, bro. Whatever makes you sleep at night...

Tell me about it. Whoever holds the Governor's mansion in a state no where near mine was really keeping me up at night until I convinced myself that Brownback would prevail.

Glad to hear it.

Are you implying Corbett's likely loss DOES keep you up at night then? ;)

Brownback is at 34-55 approval, Obama is at 33-59. Considering they're almost equally as hated, I doubt Brownback's "muh Obama" strategy is going to work. At least McConnell actually has some type of connection to Obama since he'd be the potential majority leader, but Brownback trying to use it is just sad considering he's been governor for 4 years and all he has to run on is hatred of the incumbent president.

Brownback is hated certainly but he can still pull it out if Umbehr pulls enough of the anti-Brownback vote. Brownback should be trying to funnel enough of his opponents' votes to Umbehr if he wants to stand a chance. Perhaps invite him to debates or throw some money into a fake Libertarian PAC, etc. Umbehr's voters likely aren't particularly selecting Umbehr and aren't likely actual libertarians. They're just looking for a vehicle for their protest vote. Brownback can survive as long as enough of them choose a vehicle that isn't Paul Davis.

I mean, if you simply assert that he "will be in the lead" without backing it up and tell people to "get a grip," implying that one must be delusional to think that a candidate consistently up in the polls could win, you can expect that sort of response. I agree that it tends to be overused (based on what I've seen so far) and that a few wrong predictions shouldn't completely undermine what one has to say, but you could definitely be a bit more pragmatic about how you say it given the circumstances.

See, the problem with this response is that it ignores the fact that I have backed it up with comments other than, "Get a grip" but yes, that comment still applies.

And Obama and Brownback aren't "equally hated," IceSpear. Get real. Almost the same approval, sure. But if you ask most Kansans who they dislike more strongly, you're obviously going to have most people respond with, "Obama." Hands down.

I'm curious about the real numbers for that. Might be a question worth asking in their next poll.

That's fair, you have provided other reasoning, and I agree that most Kansans would say they dislike Brownback more than Obama. I guess I just think you need to accept that a Davis victory is a very legitimate possibility, or at least that thinking that doesn't make you delusional. And it's natural that you'll get the Santorum response if you so fiercely proclaim otherwise.

I apologize for being so adamantly right.

Agreed. I'd actually anticipate it being somewhat close, probably with a small lead for Obama. But unfortunately for Brownback, Obama isn't on the ballot and he is.

A "small lead" for Obama. In a safe GOP state, you really think Brownback is that viciously hated that Obama would only have a "small lead" in the "Disliked More" category. Oh man.

P.S. - Bush wasn't on the ballot in 2006. Obama wasn't on the ballot in 2010.

Uh, yes? Maybe not small overall, but small relative to what one would expect. It wouldn't take very many "crossovers" to keep it within single digits, for instance.

And governor's races have a very different dynamic from congressional races. Most people tend to run on their plans for the state or their accomplishments as governor, whereas congressional races tend to be more about national issues. Now, obviously that template won't work for Brownback since he is a miserable failure that is currently losing despite being an incumbent Republican governor and former Senator in a ruby red state and has an approval rating almost as bad as the black incumbent Democratic president. But I doubt people are going to be as receptive to the argument in this case.

It's easy to be popular when all you have to do is sit around vote "no" on everything like Brownback did as Senator, but as he's finding out, when you actually have to force your right wing agenda down the throats of people, even a conservative state like Kansas isn't buying what he's selling. "Quick! Over there! Obama! Boo!". That's all he has left. He thinks he's still a Senator, and it's sad and pathetic.

Bless your heart

By Umbehr helping Brownback, that means that most of the Umbehr voters are Davis-leaning?

And "win easily", don't forget.

Quite sharply according to this poll. Davis leads as their second choice by a 65/21 margin (standard caveat re: small sample size of course).

I'll further note that, while Orman is running strongly enough in the Senate race to sustain a serious campaign and likely a sizable final tally, Umbehr running in the high single digits is consistent with typical 3rd party candidates whose actual vote % runs well behind where they polled a couple months earlier. That bodes ill for Brownback.

These posts sum the race up admirably. Bottom line: Brownback has a narrow line to walk hoping for re-election with a 34% approval rating just because it's Kansas and Obama is president. IMO he NEEDS to bring up his approval rating by election day, and more than a few points from Republicans coming home so they now "approve" of the guy they're voting for.

Looking at cross-tabs, he's got room to grow among the 22% of voters who are "somewhat conservative". 85% disapprove of Obama, but only 53% currently support Brownback, though 39% disapprove of his job as governor. He also has room to grow, albeit less, among the 24% of voters who are "very conservative"; currently 78% already support Brownback (and 18% disapprove of his job as gov).

Rough number crunching says if he can lose less than 20% and 10% respectively among these groups--again, despite having disapproval ratings almost twice that high for each--he'd be close. Even then he has to hope Umbehr gets at least mid-single digits to syphon off Davis to have a chance.

Even then, Davis is currently polling only 73% among the near quarter of voters who call themselves liberal (very or somewhat, mostly the latter), and is likely to consolidate support at least somewhat there. It appears Brownback has to attract at least some support from the 31% who are moderates. Only 1 in 6 support him currently, and 71% :o disapprove of his job as governor. Even Obama's approvals among this group are positive (46/40). He's got to sliver a couple extra percentage points from moderate Republicans who disapprove of Obama enough they'll vote for the arch-conservative governor whose job they're only "not sure" about or at least only mildly disapprove of.

Take note: Brownback's re-election depends on his making some in-roads with moderates. Make of that what you will.

Well, I will defend Phil (although Badger's posts are really great).

Firstly, the "SANTORUM WILL WIN BLABLA",
Phil said that exactly:
He clearly said that Casey could beat him, but Phil didn't believe Casey was going to run.

Phil wasn't really wrong on santorum's chances, he was wrong on the fact that Casey wasn't going to run. That's not a critical mistake. He doesn't deserve to be mocked by that 10 years after this event.

So seriously, dismissing Phil's opinion because of "Santorum will win" is really weird.

--------------------

Then, Phil has indeed a rep bia, because he's a republican. That's totally normal. I have a dem bia, most of the democrats have a bia,...
But his opinion is articulate. So please, respect at least what he says, and if you disagree with him, take time to answer to him respectfully and not saying "Santorum will win", Badger did that well flr instance, his answer was articulate.

This situation just shows how dem biased is this forum.


----------------
Now I will give my opinion of that.

I wouldn't be so confident than Phil, but he's indeed right. The republicans are going to win here, Davis' lead has been reduced extremely quickly, and Kansas is one of the reddest state in the country historically speaking.

The KS swing voter is probably tmthforu, and he will probably vote for the reps, like Bacon King's family is a good indication for Georgia, tmthforu represents well the swing voters of his state :P.

Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure his official prediction (as in, right before the election) was that Santorum would beat Casey, something that was obviously not going to happen, and it wasn't even close. And saying "Brownback will lead by October, get a grip" is not a reasonable or articulate point.

Seriously guys, give it a rest. Phil has made LOTS of bad predictions beyond Santorum.

Swing voters don't matter as has been proved by study after study.

LoL.

And tmth just moved to KS.

No more than almost any other poster here. ::)

Not a "reasonable" point? He's down by two in a PPP poll, for Christ's sake. You seriously believe it's unreasonable for him to be ahead by October in Kansas? You said something earlier about someone being sad and pathetic but I think you had the target of the comment wrong...

I'll admit you're no worse than, say, Bandit. :P

Heh, or like my prediction Santorum wouldn't go anywhere in 2012? ;) Granted, like almost everyone else I couldn't foresee that the conservative/tea party wing of the GOP would go through LITTERALLY EVERY OTHER alternative for the anti-Romney candidate to rally around before finally settling (more or less) on Santorum in the week before Iowa, but I was still wrong for sure.

2 in PPP with the libertarian, 5 in PPP's head to head without the libertarian, 8 in SurveyUSA, and 10 in Rasmussen.

Oh, now they want to count Rasmussen! ::)

Regardless, that and SurveyUSA were taken before the Great Boom-back.

I've never completely disregarded Rasmussen, I just take their polls with a grain of salt, so not sure what you're referring to. The fact of the matter is that Davis is ahead in every single poll but one. You're entitled to audaciously state that Brownback will win easily despite this, but don't be surprised if past audaciously wrong predictions are brought up in comparison.

Stop acting like it's late October and Davis has led in every poll of the real election season. Your disingenuousness is frustrating.

Oh please. You'd call someone a Dem hack if they said Quinn would win easily using the same logic.

Agreed- I'd tend to put Quinn and Brown in the same position. Both bad Governors who are very unpopular in their states, consistently down in polls but not completely dead due to the partisanship of their states. I'm sure Phil will find some reason why it's different though :)

No, I'd call them that because they'd be wrong.

Looks like you overestimated him. ;)

What the hell are you talking about?

Okay, what makes the Quinn and Brownback situations different then? Both are bad governors with bad approval ratings around the same percentages. Both are consistently down in polls by similar margins to their strong-but-not-superb general election challengers, but both aren't completely dead due to the partisan leanings of their states. And finally, hacks from both parties insist they will win :)

And don't use precedent of Republican Governors if Illinois, because if I used Sebelius as precedent in Kansas you would (justifiably) laugh at me.

"muh gop wave"

I've explained this now about three times: GOP enthusiasm in a safe GOP state carries GOP Governor to victory. Dems are not half as motivated this year to drag their scandal-plagued Governor with far more baggage across the finish line in Illinois.

Give me a shout about seven posts from now when I have to explain it again.

Quinn has a better chance than Brownback, because Quinn doesn't have to deal with an ancestrally fractured party which has been recently purged. Brownback has to deal with a lot of moderate Republicans crossing over to vote Democratic, just like they did for Sebelius.

He's "down two", but polling at 37 freaking %. As an incumbent governor. That's telling.

He's down 5 in the poll with Uhmber leaners, polling at 39%.

Born and raised here, been here for two years, and Kansas has similar values to Indiana.

That being said, while politically I'm probably the targeted swing voter, I also think about political implications more than the average Kansan, hence why I am leaning towards Brownback.

And the claim by Icespear checks out. Here's Phil's final PA prediction, from Nov. 3:

"Pennsylvania - Ah, here we are. This race really needed to get more attention this year....   Wink


You know, regardless of what I say here or anywhere in my predictions, these will always be predictions by an amatuer on an internet political forum. I am not a Stuart Rothenberg, a Charlie Cook, a Larry Sabato, etc. If I predict a Santorum win, I am only going to be laughed at by a small group of people that I will have no or very little contact with outside of the forum. They'll get their laugh and, you know what? I hope they enjoy it...if I do predict a Santorum win and if he ends up losing.

Then again, I can always jump ship and call for a Casey win and if I was to do that, I can already hear the comments. "Finally! The last delusional hack admits Santorum is done!" and "He's just trying to cover his ass after making such a fool of himself earlier." Eh...whatever. Life will go on. My predictions will never be Earth-shattering and the critical comments that will be directed my way will have to end some time.

I just want to say that I never requested that people not celebrate their victories. Casey supporters can rejoice in a glorious victory after slaying their arch rival (if it happens) and that's fine. At the same time, Santorum fans can also be very, very proud of their win and let people know it (again, if it happens) and that should be acceptable.

And so here it is. The end of the 2006 campaign is almost in sight. As we approach the final stop, I promise myself that I will not jump off the train...I'm sticking with what I'm saying until I get a rude awakening at the end of the line.


Santorum by less than one point."

-------------

However, it's important to note that that was 8 years ago, and it's time to stop holding it against him. If you disagree with Phil, refute him with a full counterargument, not just "And santorum's going to win too, right?". It's been 8 years, it was a reluctant prediction, and it was influenced by him being an active campaigner for Santorum. It's time to forget about it and quit using it against him.

You're not a swing voter. You're a very solid republican hack. Not saying that in a demeaning way or anything, but let's be honest here. No swing voter votes Mourdock over Donnely or Brownback over Davis.

Just for the record: that has never been in dispute. I don't deny the prediction. Never have. I think my second to last sentence is one of the most telling of the entire post, unsurprisingly always ignored by the crowd of people that just want to hold up my wrong prediction for a laugh or to prove some point.

To be fair, that makes my post much less of a prediction but people won't even give me hell for that. That's much less entertaining for them then saying what they say now.