FL-Gov: Republicans Leads Florida Guberatorial Matchups

[Moooooo]

Strategic Vision:

FLORIDA GOVERNOR
Charlie Crist 45%
Jim Davis 38%
Undecided 17%

Tom Gallagher 48%
Jim Davis 37%
Undecided 15%

Charlie Crist 46%
Rod Smith 34%
Undecided 20%

Tom Gallagher 47%
Rod Smith 35%
Undecided 18%

Quinnipiac and Rasmussen published polls not to long ago showing Davis tied or leading all Republicans.  Thoughts?

[TheresNoMoney]

Strategic Vision is a heavily biased Republican pollster. The far more reliable Ramussen published a poll exactly two weeks ago and had Davis/Gallagher tied and Davis leading Crist by 3%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Florida%20Governor%20Nov%2016.htm

I think the race will be a tossup.

[Blank Slate]

Strategic Vision is a heavily biased Republican pollster. The far more reliable Ramussen published a poll exactly two weeks ago and had Davis/Gallagher tied and Davis leading Crist by 3%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Florida%20Governor%20Nov%2016.htm

I think the race will be a tossup.

But the fact that in this latest Strategic Vision poll Davis is only behind by 7 to 11 points shows how close this still is, and it's only 11 months before the general of November 2006.   What's amazing to me is the amount of undecideds and the fact that neither Republican is polling above 48% against Davis.   This is reminds me of the polls coming out of Virginia, for the Governor's race, this time last year  (and of course we saw what happened there, didn't we?)

[ian]

OK.  I'll go with Rasmussen (surprise), but I don't think that we should get too cocky about this one yet.  Bush is at the lowest he can possibly get in approvals right now, and that's the factor of why Crist is not faring so well in these polls (other than this one).  I call it for Crist in the end because Bush's approval ratings will eventually rise again; all the undecided partisans (mostly Repubs, right?) will eventually vote party lines and don't poll that way currently because of their weariness of the Bush administration.

[Blank Slate]

OK.  I'll go with Rasmussen (surprise), but I don't think that we should get too cocky about this one yet.  Bush is at the lowest he can possibly get in approvals right now, and that's the factor of why Crist is not faring so well in these polls (other than this one).  I call it for Crist in the end because Bush's approval ratings will eventually rise again; all the undecided partisans (mostly Repubs, right?) will eventually vote party lines and don't poll that way currently because of their weariness of the Bush administration.

I'm not so sure Bush's poll #'s will go back up.  I know he gave that speech in Annapolis, MD, this morning, but at least many political pundits and news analyst are still saying that his speech still left a lot of questions about what is going on and going to happen in Iraq. 

I also still think we, the American public, still hasn't seen the worse of what the economy will do post Katrina and the shortterm Oil crises of early September 2005, I mean there is still the possibility of more of an oil shock because of home oil heating rates rising (the midwest with it's early snow storms might be the first area will this will be evident or not) and also weather forecasters are forecasting a very long, possibly nasty and abundent hurricane season for June to November 2006 -- and that is going to be unforseen (at this time) source in many of these elections in the southeast next year.   

[Sam Spade]

As usual, Florida polling caveats apply.

In other words, given a number of different results, there is only one poll that I really trust coming out of Florida, that being Mason-Dixon.

Unfortunately, they haven't polled the state in a while.

However, both Rasmussen and Strategic Vision did extremely well in Florida races in 2004, so depending on your partisan affliation, you can choose to believe whichever poll you want to until we hear from M-D.  (which will settle the matter) 

[Blank Slate]

As usual, Florida polling caveats apply.

In other words, given a number of different results, there is only one poll that I really trust coming out of Florida, that being Mason-Dixon.

Unfortunately, they haven't polled the state in a while.

However, both Rasmussen and Strategic Vision did extremely well in Florida races in 2004, so depending on your partisan affliation, you can choose to believe whichever poll you want to until we hear from M-D.  (which will settle the matter) 

I know this might sound, contrite, flippant and naive to write this, but:

NO, the only poll that matters is the one Florida voters will vote in or on on November 7, 2006.

[Sam Spade]

As usual, Florida polling caveats apply.

In other words, given a number of different results, there is only one poll that I really trust coming out of Florida, that being Mason-Dixon.

Unfortunately, they haven't polled the state in a while.

However, both Rasmussen and Strategic Vision did extremely well in Florida races in 2004, so depending on your partisan affliation, you can choose to believe whichever poll you want to until we hear from M-D.  (which will settle the matter) 

I know this might sound, contrite, flippant and naive to write this, but:

NO, the only poll that matters is the one Florida voters will vote in or on on November 7, 2006.

Am I going to have to summon J.J. in here to remind you of the first law of a losing election campaign? 

[Moooooo]

Sam, Mason Dixon disappointed me in VA this year.  Seems like SUSA and Roanoke were the most accurate of the 2005 season.

[Democratic Hawk]

It's a shame that there aren't any statewide elected Democrats - bar Nelson - down in Florida

I doubt he would, but could former governor/senator Bob Graham run if he wanted to, or is he constitutionally prohibited?

What about Mary Castor?

Dave

[Sam Spade]

Sam, Mason Dixon disappointed me in VA this year.  Seems like SUSA and Roanoke were the most accurate of the 2005 season.

Virginia does not equal Florida, especially not for M-D.  Besides, there's ages of experience we can talk about here.

It is rather ironic that in 2004 only one poll came in over Bush's final margin in Virginia, the rather unknown Times-Dispatch poll.  Then in 2005, only one poll came in over Kaine's final margin in Virginia, the totally unknown Roanoke poll.  Maybe this explains Virginia (probably not).

I'm fine with SUSA, although they didn't do particularly well in Florida in 2004, but if you want to put faith in a college poll I'd never heard of before this race, be my guest. 

[Blank Slate]

It's a shame that there aren't any statewide elected Democrats - bar Nelson - down in Florida

I doubt he would, but could former governor/senator Bob Graham run if he wanted to, or is he constitutionally prohibited?

What about Mary Castor?

Dave

Dave,

I would love for my friend and former Governor and Senator Bob Graham to run again, and I don't think there is a prohibition.  But Graham is currently 68 years old and also recently suffered from heart problems and therefore I don't think he wants to run again for anything.  I think his wife, Adele (who I also met),  would not take to kindly to her husband running for political office again, either.

I also think you mean my former state Senator (I used to live in New Port Richey), former state Education Commissioner and former University of South Florida (my alma mater by the way) president Elizabeth "Betty" Castor (not Mary).  I think that Castor is much happier in her role as head of a political watchdog group then to get into another bruising political battle at this time (I think she is 62 years old, if I'm not mistaken) and she's already sent out her former supporters (me being one of them) this information in e-mail newsletter.   

Peter

[Democratic Hawk]

Peter,

Thanks for letting me know of Bob Graham. His family and health are indeed more important. As for 'Mary' (whoops ) Castor, I meant Betty. A bit of name confusion (sounds like Mary Astor)

Dave

[Yates]

Polls from biased firms shouldn't be taken seriously.

[ATFFL]

Polls from biased firms shouldn't be taken seriously.

Strategic Vision is trying to get past their partisan past and get a media contract.  They had a good (not great) 2004. 

Other partisan pollsters have a good record.  Democracy Corp (D) had been quite good until 2004 when they showed a real bias and put out some borderline push polls.

The two partisan pollsters that make up the Battleground poll are both generally good, but let partisan ship get in the way of their working together in 2004.  This lead to the Democrat half prediciting a Kerry win while the Republicans stuck with the raw figures showing a Bush win roughly on order of his real margin.

The thing with media polls is to look at who the poll is for.  If it is for an unnamed client or for a candidate, chuck it.  If it is uncredited it is likely being done to get media attention and possibly a media commission in the future.