FL-PPP: Scott stinks to high heaven

[Badger]

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.

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.).

[Badger]

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!

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.

[Badger]

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.

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.

[Badger]

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.

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.

[Badger]

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.