Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

CA: 2010 Gov (Rasmussen 4/19)

Topics: California , poll

Rasmussen
4/19/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

California

2010 Governor
44% Brown (D), 38% Whitman (R) (chart)
50% Brown (D), 32% Poizner (R) (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Meg Whitman: 47 / 43
Jerry Brown: 51 / 42
Steve Poizner: 38 / 46

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 60 / 39 (chart)
Gov. Schwarzenegger: 29 / 70 (chart)

 

Comments
Farleftandproud:

I would like to believe that in a year when both parties have taken so much heat from the American people for their tax dollars going to bigtime ceo's of large corporations; both parties have taken a hit for giving corporate handouts before helping out small businesses; I think Whitman will have a hard time winning this one, considering she will probably outspend Brown 2-1. THis may be a great year for Republicans but not CEO politicians like Whitman.

If Brown is ahead by 6, I would guess that Boxer is up by 9.

____________________

Westwoodnc Westwoodnc:

Poizner needs to drop out. There's not a day lights difference between the two since both are RINO-ish Bay Area kajillionaires. Except Poizner's anti illegal ads are turning off people left and right. He must be to stupid to not think that every time he mentions he's a Republican after just comparing illegals to a car falling off a cliff, it devastates the brand even more. He's got nothing else. He needs to drop out and let Whitman destroy Jerry Brown (not a very hard thing to do).

Brown, btw, is doing the Coakley. It's funny to watch as he digs through Corey Haim's bag of crack and encourage stealing of documents in the politically-motivated assault on Cal State Stanislaus. He's pathetic attempt to tie Goldman Sachs to Whitman (who left the GS board ten years ago) is backfiring since HIS SISTER IS A HIGH-RANKING GS EXECUTIVE. Brown was very unpopular by the time he left, he left the state with a double-digit unemployment rate.

Whitman is going to face an uphill race. She is succeeding an unpopular GOP governor in a state that voted 62% for Obama, and where Obama remains popular. Obamabots shouldn't complain at all about her spending, since Obama himself is the master of "buying an election with corporate money".

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I didn't say that Brown is going to connect Whitman to Goldman Sachs as far as I know, but from the standpoint of a voter, but even if Whitman was a Democrat and was running against Brown in the primary I wouldn't be as likely to vote for a candidate who had connections to big wall street.

If you take the NJ scenario, you had a candidate with a legal background defeating the governor, Corzine with a connection to Goldman Sachs. Who won?

____________________

Farleftandproud:

With San Fran, a metro area with the most liberal white population everywhere, non-whites making up 40 percent of the population, as well as Hollywood, it is an uphill battle for any Republican. The Eastern Part of CA, outside the cities, is socially conservative and the people seemed quite similar to parts of Western PA. Nice people but very conservative. The area north of San Diego is kind of like the wealthy suburbs in NJ. They are very fiscally conservative and pro-big business.

It is an interesting mix, but the odds are against Campbell and Whitman.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Only Gov. Schwarzenegger could have won by such a mandate as he did as a Republican. I seriously might have voted for him myself in 2006. I am not pleased with the recall and I wish he had waited until the end of Davis's term to run against him, but he has done a pretty good job.

____________________

sjt22:

Brown was very unpopular by the time he left, he left the state with a double-digit unemployment rate.

And yet he has better favorables and unfavorables than Whitman. And he was so unpopular that his last statewide election had the larger margin of victory for any competitive race that year.

As for "leaving" it with double digit unemployment, he left in the midst of the last great recession. You know, the one that Ronnie presided over.

____________________

sjt22:

Obamabots shouldn't complain at all about her spending, since Obama himself is the master of "buying an election with corporate money".

First, whose complaining about her spending? She can spend herself broke, I don't care.

As for Obama, his fund raising advantage came from small donors and individual donors. That will tend to happen when more people support you than your opponent. Pretty simple.

____________________

YeswecanObama:

Well Time heals wounds. Tommy Thompson I read had an approval of about 30 percent when he left the governor's office, and during the Bush years was terrible, but when he was recruited to run against Feingold which he won't, his favorability shot up.

Sen. Burr from NC had lousy approval numbers when Bush was unpopular, but now that the voters dislike both Bush and Obama, keeping the Incumbent isn't so bad.

CA has a GOP governor, so I am sure his previous unfavorable record is ancient history.

____________________

YeswecanObama:

If the big 5 conservative justices in the supreme court thought unlimited corporate spending in which a corporation could be the same as a human being, if it would have favored the Democrats it would have been a 5-4 decision in keeping campaign laws as they were. Here is a new poll I found about their decision.

Supreme Court ruling allowing unlimited corporate and union campaign spending:
Approve 14% / Disapprove 79%

____________________

Westwoodnc Westwoodnc:

YeswecanObama:
If the big 5 conservative justices in the supreme court thought unlimited corporate spending in which a corporation could be the same as a human being, if it would have favored the Democrats it would have been a 5-4 decision in keeping campaign laws as they were.

===

Nice try Obot, but the Supreme Court right now is more popular than Obama, more popular than Democrats.

From today's Quinnipiac release:

Do you approve or disapprove of the way the United States Supreme Court is handling its job?
Approve 49%
Disapprove 33%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way John Roberts is handling his job as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?
Approve 49%
Disapprove 21%


But continue the hate campaign against the Constitution.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

On the Supreme court when it comes to approval, they are not going to be as polarizing as elected politicians. Of course people don't know each judge's policies in the same way they compare and contrast Harry Reid to Sue Louden or Obama to Sarah Palin in a 2012 general election.

I would simply approve of Justice Roberts because he at least decided to sware Obama in correctly and own up to his mistake, and if Obama really wasn't a legitimate American citizen Roberts wouldn't have sworn him in.

____________________

polls_apart:

@Westwoodnc:
Can you find me a poll anywhere that indicates that the Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited corporate and union spending is popular? Opposing this 5-4 decision is not a "hate campaign against the Constitution." It is irrelevant to cite polls indicating general approval of the Supreme Court or of Chief Justice Roberts when the decision in question has been shown repeatedly to be extremely unpopular. I realize that we cannot use polling to determine the constitutionality of various issues, but a 5-4 vote on such a contentious question strikes me as indicating that this is hardly a point of settled law.

____________________

polls_apart:

@Westwoodnc:
Can you find me a poll anywhere that indicates that the Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited corporate and union spending is popular? Opposing this 5-4 decision is not a "hate campaign against the Constitution." It is irrelevant to cite polls indicating general approval of the Supreme Court or of Chief Justice Roberts when the decision in question has been shown repeatedly to be extremely unpopular. I realize that we cannot use polling to determine the constitutionality of various issues, but a 5-4 vote on such a contentious question strikes me as indicating that this is hardly a point of settled law.

____________________

polls_apart:

@Westwoodnc (and all)
apologies for the double post.

____________________

polls_apart:

@Westwoodnc:
If one were to perform a "push poll" by asking about the Supreme Court's decision on political spending and then ask questions about the general popularity of the Court or the Chief Justice, I wager the approval numbers you cited would diminish.

____________________

polls_apart:

@GARY WAGNER: (responding to entry on previous post)
"If a republican scratches his ass its because he's racist."
What is that supposed to mean?
The original line (in lat's post) was saying that if the GOP had any spine, it would have told Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms "to go scratch their @$$es."
I would have preferred that lat had used a phrase like "to take a hike" (preferably not on the Appalachian Trail :-) ) rather than to scratch their nether regions.
And it is true that the original party of Lincoln (and TR) would have had extreme difficulty in assimilating the likes of Thurmond and Helms.
Over the past hundred years, the Democrats and Republicans have reversed positions on any number of issues. To cite a few: Republicans used to be protectionist and Democrats were the free-traders (see Smoot-Hawley tariff). Now it's the Democrats who are the protectionists and Republicans are the free-traders.
It used to be the Democrats who were more willing to send forces abroad (see "Democrat Wars"). Now it is more often the Republicans who are eager to do so.
The Democrats used to be the party of slavery, Jim Crow, and racism. The Republicans fought the Civil War to end Slavery. These days, slavery and Jim Crow have vanished, and racism is somewhat veiled. Even so, the occurrence of racism is found most frequently (but certainly not exclusively) among Republicans. If you don't believe it, just look at who attends the two parties' conventions.
Correspondingly, their geographical bases have also reversed, with the Democrats being strongest in areas the Republicans used to dominate, and vice versa.

____________________

Westwoodnc Westwoodnc:

polls_apart:
@Westwoodnc:
Can you find me a poll anywhere that indicates that the Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited corporate and union spending is popular? Opposing this 5-4 decision is not a "hate campaign against the Constitution." It is irrelevant to cite polls indicating general approval of the Supreme Court or of Chief Justice Roberts when the decision in question has been shown repeatedly to be extremely unpopular. I realize that we cannot use polling to determine the constitutionality of various issues, but a 5-4 vote on such a contentious question strikes me as indicating that this is hardly a point of settled law.

====

It doesn't matter what the public thinks about ONE issue, obviously OVERALL they trust the Supreme Court more than Obama. In fact, the trust goes even deeper as the poll shows Chief Justice Roberts more popular than Obama despite Obama's putrid demonization of him during the State of the Union.

"polls_apart:
@Westwoodnc:
If one were to perform a "push poll" by asking about the Supreme Court's decision on political spending and then ask questions about the general popularity of the Court or the Chief Justice, I wager the approval numbers you cited would diminish."

What is there to say about something so patently obvious? I wonder why you even made the observation. Duh, congrats for finding out that push polling tends to create the answers your looking for.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Polls_apart,

The Supreme Courts job is to protect the constitution which, in regards to the campaign finance law, they seem to have done.

Corporations are still forbidden from donating to campaigns by the way.

____________________

Gopherguy:

I wonder if this poll has incorporated people's negative feelings about Goldman Sachs. After all, Whitman was on the board when many of the current shady practices were instituted.

____________________

polls_apart:

@Westwoodnc:
Uh, Obama saying he disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision on political spending is "putrid demonization" of Chief Justice Roberts (or the Court)? My, what thin skins we have.

____________________

polls_apart:

One good upshot of the Supremes' decision to free corporations and unions of restraints on political spending: we may see fewer ads for fast-food, erectile-dysfunction cures and deodorant on TV. They will be replaced by a flood of "independently" funded political advertising.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"The poll shows Chief Justice Roberts more popular than Obama despite Obama's putrid demonization of him during the State of the Union."

Wow. So John Roberts has an approval of 49% and Barack Obama has an average approval of 47%. So Roberts is a whole 2 POINTS HIGHER and probably gets polled 15 times less. I won't even mention the MoE.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR