Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

OH: 48% Portman, 39% Fisher (Rasmussen 8/16)

Topics: Ohio , poll

Rasmussen
8/16/10; 750 likely voters, 4% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

Ohio

2010 Senate
48% Portman (R), 39% Fisher (D) (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Rob Portman: 51 / 23
Lee Fisher: 41 / 34

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 45 / 54 (chart)

 

Comments
djneedle83:

And so the Rass Dem ass whooping begins on the federal level now that we are less then 90 days to the election.

____________________

Paleo:

The last few polls have been trending towards Portman. Lots of ugly polls out right now. But August has never been kind to Democrats. We'll see how things look after Labor Day.

____________________

rdw4potus:

Unless the Rass LV screen actually IS asking if people have an opinion of the Big O, there is NO WAY that 99% of respondents would have an opinion on that question...

____________________

StatyPolly:

I put this one, plus CO and PA Senate races into GOP column like a week ago. Those chicken are not only counted, they're digested already.

The only tossup left to watch are WA, WI, NV, FL and IL.

CA stays Dem, but CT may yet become a tossup though.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I am not so sure about Colorado. Buck is a idiot. Colorado also has Tancredo and the crazy guy who believes about the UN bike conspiracy running for governor. I think Bennet will win this one.

____________________

Stillow:

StatyPolly - I think Boxer loses in CA. Something is going on in that state....I'll even bet ya a $100 to your favorite charity that Boxer loses that race.

____________________

Paleo:

Bennet is blah. Democrats would have had a much better chance with Romanoff. Now, some Democrats will vote for the Green candidate rather than Bennet.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I think one reason Portman and Toomey, and Ayotte in NH are doing well is because they have sort of not been in the spotlight from the media, and associated with Sarah Palin. Ayotte had Palin once in NH, and that was her worst week yet. I bet Toomey and Portman have done everything to keep Palin out of their state.

Because Portman and Toomey come across as ordinary guys rather than the more beligerant, angrier candidates like Buck, Rand Paul and Angle is probably their advantage.

I still think there is a slimp chance Rand Paul and David Vitter could lose. Vitter's only hope to win is to tell lies to the voters, and turn Melancon into a "liberal liar".

I am sure Vitter will convince the voters that Melancon is not a social conservative and fiscal moderate and will be part of Obama and Pelosi's radical agenda. Perhaps Vitter may be the only one who might benefit by inviting Palin to campaign for him. Lets see what her take is on abused women?

____________________

StatyPolly:

Stillow, thanks for the offer but naw.. I don't wanna bet against my own interests. Besides, I already got 2 million coming from lat.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Don't think many people will vote for a Green candidate this year, especially in a state where you have someone extremely far right on the ticket.

In VT, for the past 4 elections there was a candidate who was similar in views to a green candidate, but the GOP candidate was as moderate as you could get and still be a Republican. The far left won't take that chance in races with Angle, Buck and Toomey on the ballot.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Farleft, how is Buck an idiot? He is Ivy league grad. I think you got very wrong impression of him. He is a very polite and mild-mannered guy, from what I've seen.

I do think CO will be a closer race than PA, NH, and OH.

____________________

Stillow:

stat - hahahahah, I remember that comment about the 2 million. Is the check still in the mail?

____________________

StatyPolly:

Stillow, I hope the check will be in the mail.

I just gotta get a lot of Hispanics to vote GOP first.

It's gonna be over 40% easy.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Buck said rape victims can't have the right to choice like Sharron Angle, and his High heels comment was a bit sexist. I have to find out more about the guy, but as for Maes and Tancredo also on the ticket, I am not sure if it will help Buck.

In PA and Ohio the key to Democrats is getting African Americans to turnout, but in CO, I find that getting the younger voters is tough.

____________________

Stillow:

So your saying Buck is an idiot because he is pro life?

okie dokie then...........

____________________

StatyPolly:

"his High heels comment was a bit sexist."

You got tricked by edited video from leftist media, Farleft. It was something. I was watching CNN, and they were blasting Fox for editing that Shirley Shiraz video and right after they went to the Buck "high heels" segment.

Buck was campaigning on a ranch. He said "I don't wear high heel, I got real cowboy boots on. With real bullshit on 'em".

It was a "I am a country boy and she's a city slicker" argument. Nothing sexist about it.

Watch at 50 seconds of the clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hd0zri_NDg&NR=1

____________________

Dave:

In flap's world, Mark Kirk is "far right."

Also, rdw4potus, why is 99% of people having an opinion of President Obama such a crazy idea. He's been in office for 1.5 years now.

____________________

Field Marshal:

You got tricked by edited video from leftist media, Farleft.

I'm shocked!

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Mark kirk isn't far right. I don't want him to win because it could cost the Democrats control of the senate, but he seems reasonable as does Castle. In fact I am glad to see that the GOP hasn't just been hijacked by the Tea party.

Buck isn't an idiot just for being pro-life, but I think that being opposed to abortion in practice is one thing but wanting to repeal Roe-VS wade, and be opposed to the day after pill, and not let rape victims have a choice, as well as being anti-science is going too far. Of course I understand the views of those who disagree, but I think when I have seen polls that only about 29 percent think abortion should be illegal under all circumstances. I remember the last two Colorado Republican senators and even though they probably agreed with 85 percent of what the Tea party conservatives believe, they came across as more rational.


And Fox news isn't edited too? I have done fact check on Beck and Bill O and find a lot more truth among MSNBC. I find that Fox rarely shows footage of Democrats caught in a lie, they just state they lied; At least Maddow shows footage of situations where Republicans were for something before they were against it.


It is uncanny how many times you can find Mccain for instance on statements he made that he has gone against. Marco Rubio as well has changed his mind on immigration and Maddow caught him flip flopping on video.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I'll tell ya, that 2010 will be a bad Democratic year, but if Vitter wins, all I can say is the voters are extremely misinformed and regardless of Obama's dissaproval, how many woman want to vote for a guy who has voted against woman's rights including protection against being raped; this was legislation that George W. Bush was in support of.

If the role were reversed and Eliot Spitzer were a US Senator and had engaged in keeping an abusive staff member who had been charged with beating his girlfriend, and had previously had affairs with prostitutes but decided to stay on instead of resigning, I bet you anything that even in 2008 when Obama was flying high, had Pataki ran against him, Pataki would win.

____________________

Field Marshal:

as well as being anti-science

And how is he anti-science again? I mean in your reality.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I didn't directly accuse Buck of being anti-science, but I have a feeling he probably is in some ways.

I believe that embryotic stem cell research is contreversial for religious conservatives. I can't argue with them, and can't really change them. I know Missouri the voters supported a new facility that created thousands of jobs to study stem cell, life-saving research. Nevertheless, Bush and conservatives have attacked it on moral grounds.

Many conservatives are also anti-science when they refuse to listen to the stories of the polar bears starving and dying in the arctic, and some like INhofe and Palin deny climate change. The GOP has decided to make new environmental legislation a partisan issue; isn't the word Conservative have the word "conserve" in it? It seems like conserving is something that they don't do and won't do.

Maybe Cap and Trade is an idea too radical for America to pass; so be it! Nevertheless, it isn't just liberals who are suffering from climate change, and every time the GOP thinks they can use science to disprove it, I never see them have much of a case. The ice caps are melting, and the average temperatures in North America have been increasing slightly each decade.

That is why I would say that a majority of Republicans, not all of them are anti- science.

____________________

Bukama:

FLAP,

On changing positions, just read in todays WSJ that Harry Reid proposed in 1993 proposed a bill to block citizenship of children of illegal aliens. Now he tries to lambast Republicans who simply want to explore the wisdom of having place of birth the only qualification for being a US citizen (no other country I'm aware of does it that way).

____________________

Bukama:

Also,

you have the wrong idea about Ken Buck. He is a mild mannered district attorney type. he is pro-life (which is still a plus in CO), but what does it matter - he's running for Senate - abortion rights have been established by the S.Ct. The Senate can't eliminate abortion rights.

The high heels comment was misconstrued (as described above) and was only an issue in the primary (Michael Bennet doesn't where high heels either, as far as we know).

To help calm you fears, Ken Buck got caught calling "Birthers" dumbasses. He is hardly a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist. And I think he will beat Bennet, who has his own ethics issues coming to light.

You are right that Dan Maes is toast for Governor. I only hope the Republicans can win one or two houses of the state legislature - otherwise Governor Hickenlooper will rubber stanp a god-awful gerrymander the likes of which Coloradoans have never seen.

____________________

John1:

@farleft

I just need to let you know that you both humor and sadden me. I find your posts funny in the misinformation that you peddle but it also saddens me to think that people are actually that slow and gullible.

____________________

Field Marshal:

I didn't directly accuse Buck of being anti-science, but I have a feeling he probably is in some ways.

LOL. Unbelievable. Truly unbelievable. John1 said it best. Its very frightening that Farleft is allowed to freely roam our country.

farleft, you've also been had by the polar bear fraud.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11656-climate-myths-polar-bear-numbers-are-increasing.html

____________________

dpearl:

"farleft, you've also been had by the polar bear fraud."

FM: not sure what you meant here - though the set of articles you posted do provide a reasonable discussion of climate change science (which is, of course, supportive of FL&P's position that global warming is real and that humans are aggravating it to dangerous levels).

The site I like on climate change is www.skepticalscience.com Whenever you see a global warming skeptic's claim you can go there to quickly see the flaw in the argument.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

We shall see what happens in the midterms. It does sound like Portman is a reasonable candidate, but like Toomey if they are elected will have to be more center/right or at least vote along the lines of a Kay Huchinson or George Voinovich, or they will only last one term.

I am not so sure about Ken Buck. I think anyone who gets Palin's endorsement is going to have a hard time in a blue state or swing state. Besides I have seen recent polling that has shown that Colorado's gap between liberals and conservatives has narrowed in recent years. There are also a lot of moderates who may see Buck as out of touch.

Having weak gubernatorial candidates can hurt the senate candidate and vice versa. The democrats have a weak candidate for governor in PA which isn't going to help Sestak.

Nevertheless, the GOP's surge has been due to Fox News, and the corporate 527 ads. I keep focusing on the fact that Obama did not get us into debt and the GOP will not get us out of debt.

The GOP will have a good year in 2010, but I bet once you see what their strategy is, Obama will look good in comparison, and people will see for themselves, that one more time the failed policies of the past were able to dupe the American people.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

And Harry Reid on changing positions, that was a long time ago he might have supported that policy about illegals. It is what issues the politicians support now that is important to me.

I agree Obama is in a hole, and the Democrats are facing a tough election year, but when you have corporations randomly spending money for 527 ads to exaggerate lies about good leaders who have tried to fight for freedom and stand up to war like Patty Murray and Russ Feingold, it is easy for impressionable AMericans to believe this stuff. I have made calls for candidates, and hear tons of people telling me about ads that were outright lies about Pelosi and Obama.

To me, living in a country without campaign finance laws and a supreme court that ruled corporations being the equivalent of a person in a free speech ruling was an obstruction of justice. To me, that is what is frightening, and the people who believe these lies are frightening.

____________________

Field Marshal:

The site I like on climate change is www.skepticalscience.com Whenever you see a global warming skeptic's claim you can go there to quickly see the flaw in the argument.

Given that the man-made global warming is a theory supported by data-mined facts, there are a host of arguments that can be made but unsubstantiated. Its obvious the Earth is warming. The cause of it is still unknown.

I meant to post two links. One stating that they were increasing in population and the other stating the opposite.

Farleft and many on the left espouse the faulty notion that if you want hard facts and science on a topic, you are against science. That is obviously ridiculous. Conservatives being against embryonic stem cells has nothing to do with being against science rather FOR life- not to mention that they are completely unnecessary when regular stem cells do the same job.

____________________

BigMO:

FarLeft,

Ken Buck might seem extreme to you and the good people of Vermont. But out here it's a whole nother kind of country, and we like Ken Buck. We like him a lot. We like his straight talk, common sense, and no-nonsense conservatism.

Everytime you talk about this great state of Colorado I can imagine you picturing New Hampshire with better mountains. It's not. And Ken Buck will win by a healthy margin precisely because, alas, it's not.

____________________

dpearl:

I certainly don't view opposition to Embryonic stem cell research as anti-science since that is primarily based on moral and ethical considerations.

Denying global warming as some do certainly shows an ignorance of the science. Denying that human actions are an important cause of global warming is generally also a fairly anti-science attitude in my book. To me the valid political arguments lie in the cost versus benefits of proposed methods to alleviate the problem. I think many people deny the science in order to make the political issue mute.

FM - answer me this. In your heart of hearts - If it wasn't Al Gore pushing this and if there was a simple free market solution to the problem - would you still be skeptical about the science?

____________________

seg:

dpearl:
I spent hours one evening just looking at the temperature changes that have occured on this earth of the last many millenia. The changes that we have seen in the last 100 years are not even visible because of scale. The big deal is not the pathetic degree of warming at issue here; it is ice ages.

Ice ages in the last thousands of years have been associated with massive die-backs of human kind. Warm periods like this are the odd balls that are associated with bountiful harvests and human population explosions.

Even then, there are many legitimate reasons to question that accuracy of those estimated recent temperature changes. They are estimates because they do not simply the average of temperature measurements. No, they massage them many, many times before aggregating them. Oddly, every "correction" seems to require raising values still further from those observed. It is amazing!

Worse, the measurement stations often have become invalidated by encroaching heat sources over time. Hence, it is necessary to "correct" for that and to drop well over half of measurements and replace them with synthetic values. Now, foolish me, I would think that temps are elevated by concrete and asphalt, but no, somehow the corrections increased estimates yet again. See how this works?

The simulations that so much depends on are just that, simulations. They agree with each other to the extent that they "correct" their models so they will. The independence of NASA et al was shown to be a self-serving myth by those famous emails.

In any case, I have dealt with modeling for a long time. You can create any result you want with very small tweaks in your algorithmns and constants. Changing a single sign can transform predictions from day to night or vice-versa. Only in rare cases do they match the systems they allegedly model.

You simply cannot correctly model a intricately interactive system unless you have accurate algorithyms for each interactions. Climate researcher simply can not do that. Period. They cannot because they cannot do actual experiments and, unlike physics, there are few derivable relationships.

They cannot account for clouds (75% of the sky), the ocean, ocean currents, dust, etc., much less their interactions. Their supposed model for C02 interactions is implausible and has never been proven in any way other than by tautology. The critical assumptions about the behavior of the upper atmosphere and the magnetosphere have been holed badly by actual observations in the last few years. Temperatures in the upper atmosphere simply do not match the assumptions made for the greenhouse models.

As I am sure you know, interpolations sometimes make a fool of those who do them; extrapolations makes fools of us all. The same models that predict the next year accurately are used to predict 100 years from now. It is taking a Rube Goldberg contraption and jet propelling it to 500 mph. There will be tears (not to mention teeth, hair, and skin all over the place).

It is exactly the same problem as the econometrix models that so misled financial people recently. Ultimately, their models consisted of a curve fit to past data and some assumptions about how major variables work. Such models can work modestly well until something changes, the whoopsie! A simple extrapolation from the curve fit would have been better (but still useless).

It is entirely possible that the earth temperature is in a warming trend. Why not, it has happened countless times in earth's history. It has been much warmer than now and much colder. C02 has been vastly higher than today. In fact, C02 changes seem to preceed temperature changes, not the reverse. In any case, look at C02 on the infrared spectrum. It is a narrow blip. Now look at methane. Wow! Now look at H20, which is vastly more abundant in the atmosphere. It covers whole mountain ranges in IR absorption. It is physically impossible for C02 absorbs enough IR to matter.

Knowing that, climate researchers postulate an that C02 acts as a synergistic agent. The proof is the theory and theory is proved by the fact that C02 levels are rising. As every statistician, association proves causation. Right? Or was it the other way around.

The burden of proof is on those who assert that C02 is the agent, not on the skeptics.

Finally, I am glad you agree that the proposed solutions do not meet a cost-benefit test. To be rude about it, they do not meet the laugh test, either. If the US and Europe together cut their C02 emissions by 20%, if will be mostly by importing from those who are emitting. India and China will shortly emit far more additional C02 than the total cost savings we could create even if you eliminated import issues. In a matter of decades, it would not matter if we emitted 50% of what we do today.

Bribing other countries to reduce their omissions is wildly popular with the potential recipients. So far, they have not been very good about keeping any of the conservation committments they have made unless they already had good old fashion self-interested reasons to do it. Their strategy is simple: take the idiots money, pretend to set aside land while you exploit other available land, then exploit the supposedly set aside land. What could the idiots possibly do about it?

Given those things, efforts to reduce C02 are vanity exercises. Frankly, although I am usually not a conspiracy enthusiast, it is clear to me that carbon taxes (whatever the disquise) are an excellent way to tax unpopular groups to raise more money to spread around. It fits all too well with progressive's wettest dreams.

____________________

dpearl:

SEG: In a few years I will be retired and have the kind of time it takes to respond to your long posts. I hope you are still active on this site at that time - I like civil and thoughtful discussions.

For now - I recommend that you have a look at the website I cited which deals pretty thoroughly with the principal issues you raise. Briefly, you mention a few criticisms of air temperature measurements - which is, of course, only one of a multitude of dependent variables followed that provide evidence for global warming and are not affected by any of the criticisms you cite. As an example, I’ll shamelessly push the work of a colleague of mine at Ohio State, Lonnie Thompson, who studies ice core samples from mountain glaciers (a really unassuming fellow with no axe to grind what-so-ever). You also cite complexity issues - and a distrust of modeling (a position you often take wrt models of sample survey data on many issues here at Pollster.com as well). Here I suggest you take a "proof is in the pudding" outlook and examine the array of predictions that occur each year following the best climate models – even subtle stuff like the behavior of coastal versus inland mountain glaciers and sea versus land arctic glaciers.

____________________

Field Marshal:

FM - answer me this. In your heart of hearts - If it wasn't Al Gore pushing this and if there was a simple free market solution to the problem - would you still be skeptical about the science?

Dpearl,

The answer is i don't know. For every piece of science 'clearly' demonstrating that the warming of the planet is man-made, there is science showing that it is natural. Thus, the science is not settled.

Wanting the science settled before you draw a conclusion does not make one anti-science. Its just a cop-out response to a position you don't like in someone else.

I was in a class about 12 years ago where the professor, a former liberal Governor of Colorado, brought in two experts in the discussion- one saying global warming was man-made and another stating it wasn't. Before the class, he asked the kids who believed global warming was man-made and about 80% raised their hands. After both experts explained their positions, he asked again, and it was 50/50. This from a professor who has devoted his retirement years similarly to Al Gore.

____________________

Don't forget, we don't have to choose between the lesser of two evils in Ohio for the US Senate this year. Eric Deaton is strong and determined. He just needs people to start talking about him, if the media won't do it because they are in the club with the insider politicians then won't you help put the word out? At least we have a real choice this time.

____________________



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