Talk Elections

()


State-Governor-Approve-Disapprove

AL - Bob Riley: 64-32
CA - Arnold Schwarzenegger: 50-44
IA - Chet Culver: 56-38
KS - Kathleen Sebelius: 70-28
KY - Ernie Fletcher: 39-57 - Up for re-election 2007
MA - Deval Patrick: 53-40
MN - Tim Pawlenty: 53-42
MO - Matt Blunt: 48-46 - Up for re-election 2008
NM - Bill Richardson: 65-32
NY - Eliot Spitzer: 53-38
OH - Ted Strickland: 58-32
OR - Ted Kulongoski: 51-43
VA - Tim Kaine: 60-34
WA - Christine Gregoire: 54-39 - Up for re-election 2008
WI - Jim Doyle: 44-50

TX was not polled in July.

http://www.surveyusa.com/50StateTracking.html

What's with Jim Doyle's low numbers?

Hmm. I don´t know, he reached a high in the poll done after his re-election victory in November 2006 when he had a 55-42 approval rating and slided to 41-52 approval in June 2007. He now seems to recover a bit:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=f39a977e-7799-4009-ac89-698bbc1c2429

What´s interesting is that Beshear gets about the same %age of votes who disapprove of Fletcher.

Blunt has a net approval rating? Whoa...

IA - Chet Culver: 56-38
This is great. Chet Culver should run for senate in 2010.... This can only help dems win the state in 2010 too.

KS - Kathleen Sebelius: 70-28
Take that Bill O'Reilly!

NM - Bill Richardson: 65-32
Since I want to promote Biden to SoS, he should just run for senate in 2008 too. He won't though. Idiot.

NY - Eliot Spitzer: 53-38
These are pretty low for Spitzer.

OH - Ted Strickland: 58-32
Dem column 2008, can only help!

VA - Tim Kaine: 60-34
Let's keep VA going blue.

Im guessing youre talking about Secretary of State, not me. :)


Its good to see Kulongoski back in the black numbers, and Gregoire's #'s leave little worrying for me at this point.

Spitzer has been overplaying his hand, appearing like a bully against the Senate Republicans and allowing those Republicans to form an alliance with Bloomberg.  I expect certain others to chime in differently, but at present he is losing that battle politically.

I can't really understand why he's giving a demoralized NY GOP anything to actually fight for at this point.  Being a little more concillatory would probably have strengthened his hand (and he would have gotten more passed).

In short, the honeymoon is over.  These numbers are not surprising.

Blunt's numbers may be an outlier, maybe not.  People have been writing him off too quickly, like Daniels, even though I find amusing writing the conclusion for the IN race on polls that are at least 9 months old.

Bloomberg has always had an alliance with the Republican senate. Anyway.... Spitzer has already picked up 1 assembly republican seat (party switcher) and won a senate seat for the dems.

dayam

There's 15 polls, so odds are one is a 1-in-20. Missouri is likely that.

And do you Republicans honestly believe Pawlenty can lock up this state on the ticket with those approvals? I'm not saying they're horrible or anything, but come on. (furthermore once must take into account Minnesota leans toward high approval ratings like the opposite of NJ, and they would almost certainly drop if he was added on a ticket and seen as focusing more on the campaign than the state)

Same goes for people who think Arnold can beat Boxer.

LOL ARNIE BEATING BOXER

We'll never elect a Republican to the Senate. They've had their day in this state.

Blunt's going to get hurt badly if he has to give back $4M of the $4.6M he raised because the MO Supreme Court overruled the repeal of campaign donation limits.

He's never been liked at all, people just liked him better than his Republican opponants (which is why he became "popular" around election time).

Why the Hell didn't they poll Mississippi?

I gotta admit Doyle's numbers scare me. (could this mean the Republicans will pick up the governor's mansion in 2010?)

The Republicans just need the right candidate. They had Tommy Thompson beating Doyle in 2006 with in the upper 50's. If they would have somebody like him (or Tommy himself) they could win.

Doyle was about that unpopular in August 2006, too. His numbers picked up before the election because Wisconsin wasn't prepared to elect Green, either. He'd have to actually get involved in a scandal to drop lower, though.

But what'll happen in 2010?

I wouldn't say Spitzer has overplayed his hand, he is fighting to do what he campaigned to do.  try to bring change to the way the State Assembly and Senate worked.  His tactics may have turned off some people, but when it comes down to it I think it will pass, especially as the guy he has clashed the most with could very well be in legal hot water (the State Senate Majority leader Joseph Bruno)

Because there's no point.

Besides what I said already, members of his cabinet are already in scandals and he hasn't done alot or what a lot of people want him to do. He also said he won't sign anything to reinstate the death penalty even though we voted that we wanted it last November.

Good guy - Approve :)

But there is a point in polling NM and AL, where we already know the incumbents are popular and will never be up for reelection again?

You can deny it all you want, but Barbour is up for reelection, and any data would be valuable.
There has not been a single public poll done on the race, nor has Barbour's approval been polled in months.  It would only be logical to occasionally gather a bit of data on the race...

They poll wherever a local media outlet has commissioned them to, Harry.

Eventually doing that (going against what most people in the state wants) will hurt him enough. Hopefully that will be in 2010.

If I recall correctly, he wasn't really popular at all. People just didnt want a republican. Anyway.. I doubt he will run in 2010, he will probably be primaried.

It's actually quite consistent with his upward poll trend lately.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=8cc5fc9f-cc71-4baf-9a5d-64754cdc2c5d (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=8cc5fc9f-cc71-4baf-9a5d-64754cdc2c5d)

That's the main reason why I called Blunt more likely than Daniels to win re-election in 2008.

Well, my question is - have we seen a Daniels poll since November 2006?  At that time, his approval was at 43-49, where Blunt's was at 39-57.  If we haven't, we have no idea whether Daniels' approval has gone up or down.

Therefore, it seems conclusory to make any assessment about his polling numbers since the last polls are so old.  That's the reason why right now I'm making assessments based on the candidates running against them.

Though I do understand your point.

I would like to see another Alaska poll with Palin's like 95% approval rating

She has slipped lately. It's down to 83%, I believe.  :P

I'm sure she has close to 100% approval among straight men.
She's perhaps the only Republican I'd ever say that I approved of in a poll.

I'd approve of her in my poll.  Or on it.

Edit: Jesus, she's 43.  I should be ashamed of myself.  But I'm not.

I approved all over her poll.

It amuses me that SUSA calls the page their "50 state" tracking poll, when it certainly is not.

I do have to thank Mr. Moderate for noticing that poll trend, which I missed myself.  To me, it looks like the classic upward trend movement and I would definitely remove my remark that this is likely an outlier.

Yes he was never popular, but the Republicans just need to put up the right person to beat him. Get Tommy Thompson to run against him in 2010, he could easily win a fifth term.

This isn't going to help Spitzer either:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/nyregion/24spitzer.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

In Wisconsin, I hope Doyle doesnt run again in '10.  I thing LG Barbara Lawton will be a great governor... and I think she'd beat any GOPer.

Sure, Blunt is slowly becoming less unpopular but I don't think he'll be able to survive because of the strength of a Jay Nixon challenge. 

Daniels, meanwhile, may have an easier time because of lack of a top tier... Gregoire, too, will never be too popular but will likely squeeze past also-ran Rossi...

I think the Dems need to put Sebelius on the national ticket.  I'll say it again--she'd be a great VP for Obama, Biden, Richardson, etc.

If Tommy Thompson runs (hopefully) she'd be toast.

He cant afford to resign from the presidency just 1 year in, can he? ;) ;D

Bah, you know he (unfortunatly) won't win the Republican nomination. :'(

Don't the Wisconsin Republicans have anyone to run besides this loser? How long has he been out of office? Christ, get some fresh blood.

There's plenty of people on both sides though nobody is really well known. And why wouldn't you try to run the strongest Republican in the state if you could? That would be stupid.