by jagakid, Wed Sep 20, 2006 at 02:01:47 AM EDT
Two new Strategic Vision polls tonight in Michigan and Wisconsin (http://www.strategicvision.biz/political
/results.htm) and I thought it was interesting to use state polling to compare Bush's approval rating, as opposed to the national approval polls we have been debating. I don't think it's reasonable to deny there has been a bump in the past month. Both states list Bush higher than similar Strategic Vision polls in August, from 34% to 38% in Michigan and 32% to 37% in Wisconsin. These are blue states that will poll lower than the national average.
In Michigan, Bush improves 3% on terrorism, 4% on Iraq but only 1% on the economy, from 27% to 28%. I realize no one wants to hear that, that Bush's approval rating is lower on the economy than Iraq or overall. While Bush is obviously receiving a bump from lower gas prices that does not appear to be impacting the view of the economy. I'm destined to be frustrated for the balance of this campaign, looking at horrid approval ratings on the economy while we insist on never mentioning it. Just the other day Bush handed us a silver platter quote by saying the economy was in great shape and he expected the election to be a referendum on the economy. Just imagine if he said Iraq was in great shape. The blogosphere and TV pundits would have been all over that. Yet Bush polls worse on the economy than Iraq. I had a previous diary with the numbers from 9 SV polls. It's beyond incredible he thinks the economy is in great shape despite the approval ratings screaming otherwise, yet we make no attempt to pounce.
by jagakid, Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 03:27:35 AM EDT
IMO this is even better than Tessa's debut ad ("Fire Don Rumsfeld") from last week: http://www.lasvegasgleaner.com/Accountab
In the new spot she's more natural with the smile and sneaks in some positive bio and values material before hammering Jon Porter for voting with Bush 90% of the time, and all the harm that's done; "billions in tax breaks to big oil, cuts that hurt veterans and votes that weaken border security." She includes a picture of Bush and Porter, beaming together, arm in arm. No direct mention of Iraq, but it was the focus of the first ad, which is still running.
I'm beginning to believe this race is very winnable, moreso than Jill Derby in Nevada 2 and perhaps equal or better to Dina Titus' chance in the gov race. BTW, Titus is going on the air next week. Her dimwit opponent, Jim Gibbons, has been ripping Titus in commercials for raising specific taxes, even though he voted for some of the same measures himself.
by jagakid, Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 05:55:26 PM EDT
This ad came out today and I'm very pleased by it. It fits with her style on the local political talk show here in Las Vegas, where host Jon Ralston called her "poised and aggressive." Hafen certainly didn't mess around with a tame introduction in her first TV ad. She splashes, "Democrat for Congress" on the screen immediately then calls for Rumsfeld to be fired. The centerpiece is, "We need to hold the Bush administration accountable by asking the tough questions, and getting rid of yes-men like Jon Porter."
This is the new Las Vegas district created in 2002. It's the first time bland rubber stamp Porter has faced a competent challenger not plagued by scandal. The district is 50/50 in registration and this year it's on the top 40 or 50 lists, Hafen within 51-43 in a recent poll.
It's probably tougher for me to objectively evaluate the local spots due to obsessive rooting interest. Porter is a stiff in the Ensign/Gibbons mold. On my first watch the only flaws that hit me were the, "For a Change For Us" slogan at the end is weak, and her smile is not nearly as broad or as natural as in public appearances. But it's a decisive memorable ad that should extinguish the "who?" reactions I get on the Strip when mentioning Hafen to locals.
Hafen is very young, 30ish, but has already served for eight years on Capitol Hill for Harry Reid, recently as press secretary and senior advisor.
by jagakid, Sat Sep 02, 2006 at 11:37:01 PM EDT
This goes along with the first comment in this thread: http://mydd.com/story/2006/9/3/04158/801
The liberal blogosphere has reached a happy consensus, that Iraq is the vulnerable issue, holding Bush accountable. But if you examine statewide polling, Bush's approval rating is worse regarding the economy than any major area. His overall approval rating is basically a mirror of the approval number on Iraq. Only on the economy does Bush fare worse, often significantly worse, than his overall approval number.
At bottom of this diary are recent statewide numbers from Strategic Vision. Yes, I realize it's a Republican firm but these are approval numbers, not D vs. R margins. I don't detect inflated numbers, when compared to other approval percentages. And this company asks a wider variety of approval questions than other firms that freely release the info: http://www.strategicvision.biz/political
by jagakid, Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 01:33:10 AM EST
Why hasn't there been more focus or analysis on this? Security moms were not a myth. The numbers are crystal:
2000 Bush 49 Gore 48%
2004 Bush 55 Kerry 44%
That's the election. You can't fade a 10% loss in the largest voting block, 41% of the electorate, and expect to make it up anywhere else.
The other major voting blocks stayed very similar:
2000 Bush 60 Gore 36%
2004 Bush 62 Kerry 37%
2000 Gore 90 Bush 9%
2004 Kerry 88 Bush 11%
Terrorism fear obviously swayed white women, probably married white women, toward Bush as a security blanket. I couldn't figure out the 5 point difference in the Florida presidential and senate races until I checked the numbers among white women. They broke 49-49 for Castor and Martinez, no doubt the natural tendency. But with the national security concern atop the ticket, it changed to Bush 56 Kerry 43.