Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

FL: 45% Scott, 42% Sink (Rasmussen 8/25)

Topics: Florida , poll

Rasmussen
8/25/10; 750 likely voters, 4% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

Florida

2010 Governor
45% Scott (R), 42% Sink (D), 4% Chiles (i) (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Alex Sink: 50 / 38
Rick Scott: 45 / 46
Bud Chiles: 30 / 36

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 46 / 53 (chart)
Gov. Crist: 50 / 48 (chart)

 

Comments
rdw4potus:

Gosh, another Rasmussen poll that literally makes no sense.

Scott is up 3, despite having net favorability of -1. Sink has net favorability of +12.

How did this sample manage to show the less liked candidate leading by 3%?

____________________

Cederico:

Its Rasmussen...that explains it. They will find a way to have the GOP leading.

____________________

John1:

The 5 point differential in favorability between Scott and Sink are probably eaten up by two factors: Bud Chiles and the enthusiasm gap (probably in the likely voter model used by Ras).

____________________

John1:

*Excuse me, i meant the 3 point differential in the matchup.

____________________

Bob in SJ:

McCollum has yet to endorse Scott, and he may even endorse sink.

Given PPP's track record in the primary, I'm incolned to trust their numbers over Rass, who didn't even poll the primary.

____________________

rdw4potus:

I would argue that the enthusiasm gap should be reflected in all responses to the poll, including the answer to the favorability question.

Since this is a poll of likely voters, the unlikely-to-vote unenthusiastic democrats are already weeded out. And even with the LV sample, the favorability gap persists (and clashes with the electability question).

____________________

StatyPolly:

There is a possible explanation for the divergence between the topline and favorability.

Voters may think that Scott is a lowlife scum (especially after the negative primary) and that Sink is a decent woman personally, but still want to stop establishment Dems at all costs.

Seems to be the sentiment that's sweeping much of the country. The latter.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Charlie Cook actually addressed this very issue:

""There are two kinds of elections," he said. "There's sort of the Tip O'Neill all-politics-is-local, and then there are wave elections. We're seeing just every sign in the world that this is going to be a wave, and a pretty good-sized wave."

So his point is that in a wave type elections, things like favorabilities and personalities don't matter.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791804575439280082999858.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop

My advice to Dems: Buy a looong snorkel.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Overpolling Republicans, plain and simple.

____________________

tjampel:

Chiles becoming a nonfactor is a plus for Sink.

Dem enthusiasm is very low and the tough Ras LV screen we've seen in place for months now looks more realistic with each passing day.

The silver (OK...maybe it's more like tin) lining for Dems is that this doesn't mean that their voters who are currently too unmotivated to get to the polls have also changed their political views; rather, they've decided that, given what they currently know and how they currently feel it's simply not worth voting. It's still far easier to convince them otherwise than to get them to change their views back.

What will work? Well...sleaze (Vitter, Blunt, Kirk, etc.) only works to a point in a wave election. And the only thing that stops waves is a lot of fear turned into a huge sandbagging operation. If there's a tornado watch it may not change your behavior; if there's a tornado warning (meaning one's been seen touching down nearby) you certainly will.

Hard to paint an entire party as representing cataclysmic and dangerous change which threatens the things people personally want from Gov (their medicare, SS, etc...their benefits, mainly). If you can do it effectively, though, and people believe their own entitlements are threatened, and it's not just a lack of jobs to worry about, they'll act out of self-interest (if not empathy) to protect them.

I think these programs are all threatened by a GOP takeover, given the new breed of Republican we're seeing now who are unafraid (at least when thrashing it out in primaries) to go directly after entitlements.

Naturally, Republicans have fought against these programs from their inception and only claim to support them now because so many people people currently rely on these handouts (that is for political expediency).

This is one thing that makes the current crop of Repubs interesting; they're clearly ready to sign onto the Ryan Road Map or go much further. If the ramifications of their zeal to go after these behemoth programs is properly communicated to the American people through a really good Ad campaign how will they react?

We'll see; I've yet to see that kind of nationalized campaign. I've seen attempts to paint Repubs as crazy using poster-people like Rand. But that's not the strategy I'm talking about here. It's more like....if you vote Republican then the plug will really get pulled on granny....here's why. Because they really do want to take away your Medicare, SS, disability, etc. coupled with some really good clips...then it's fine to use Angle, Paul, and others...but, not as the voice of the extreme wing, but as the future behavior of the Republican Party itself (which will reflect this new wing and sentiment of its base very soon); this WILL BE the beginning of the end of entitlements as we know them, which is the true goal of the Party.

____________________



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