« Comments Down Temporarily | Main | New SUSA Bush 50-State Poll »
Thursday, November 17, 2005
OH-Sen: Rasmussen Polls Hackett v. DeWine
Posted by DavidNYCRasmussen releases a new poll on Paul Hackett vs. Mike DeWine. And it looks really bad for DeWine (likely voters, no trendlines):
Hackett: 42
DeWine: 41
Other: 5
Undecided: 12
(MoE: ±4.5%)
It had looked like Rasmussen was including the actual number of undecideds in their little data box (they did for a few recent polls), but here, I'm just inferring the d/k number.
Anyhow, I know what you're thinking - 42-41 is basically a tie. How can I say that this is bad news for DeWine? Simple: Name recognition. DeWine's favorability rating is 48-38; Hackett is just 33-29 - 38% don't know enough to form an opinion of Hackett yet, vs. just 14% who say the same about DeWine. It's not good to be tied with a guy who's unknown to a third of the state. As Hackett's name rec grows, it seems only likely that he'll put some daylight between himself and DeWine.
I find one thing a bit troubling: Hackett's unfavorables seem pretty high for a guy who's never held elective office and still isn't that widely known. I'm wondering why that should be. Could his oft-replayed remarks about Bush during the special election have engendered some deep hatred among hard-core Republicans, who heard Rush Limbaugh denigrate our armed forces by slurring Hackett as a "staff puke" on AM radio? I dunno - it's just one hypothesis.
Also, I don't know why Rasmussen didn't poll Sherrod Brown vs. DeWine, though I did send an e-mail to Scott Rasmussen asking about the omission. If I get a reply, I'll let you know.
Posted at 12:28 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Ohio | Technorati
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.swingstateproject.com/mt/mt-track-ssp.cgi/1968
Comments
I think you're right that these numbers are REALLY bad for DeWine. Re-elections (especially to those who have been in for a couple terms or more) are largely referendums on the incumbent, and if DeWine is barely getting the backing of 2/5 of people in Ohio, that spells real trouble. They've had 12 years to decide they support him, and a clear majority don't.
My guess is that Hackett's negatives seem so high because the only people outside of southern Ohio who really have heard of him are the hard-core political junkies (on either side) -- your average voter in central or northern Ohio has had no reason to really pay attention to him/form an opinion. My guess is a large chunk of his positive and negative numbers as well are not set in stone, but "moveable". So I agree that he has the potential to open up a lead on DeWine -- but this is the crucial time for him to define himself to the rest of the state, and not let the GOP (and especially the hardcore right wing) define him first.
Posted by: IndianaProgressive ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.swingstateproject.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 17, 2005 12:57 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
DeWine's been behaving like a lost puppy of late, shifting his allegiances between the far-right and the center, not knowing which way to go to raise his poll numbers. Indeed, he seems to have ticked off conservatives by joining the Gang of 14 while moderates are just in the mood for change. I think you're right about why Hackett's negatives are as high as they are, but considering more people currently plan to vote for him that know who he is bodes very poorly for DeWine.
I would like to see Brown's numbers in a hypothetical against DeWine....and a primary poll between Hackett and Brown. Perhaps if one poll shows a decisive momentum for one of the two men, they'll withdraw and seek another elected office, saving a down-and-dirty primary from cannibalizing one of its two rising stars in a state where we need as many rising stars as we can get.
Posted by: Mark at November 17, 2005 01:29 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Are Hackett's dis numbers significantly higher than those of any other Dem (or Rep for that matter)? There will always be a bunch of folks who dis anybody identified with the other side, no?
Posted by: DaveW at November 17, 2005 02:55 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
DaveW: That's why I'd love to see a poll on Brown, too. I feel that Hackett's unfavorables are surprisingly high, but I can't say for certain whether that's an empirically correct conclusion.
Posted by: DavidNYC at November 17, 2005 03:11 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Also in the latest Rasmussen Poll, Ted Strickland up on Ken Blackwell 42%-36%, with a MOE of +/- 4.5%, significant...
Posted by: andre2006 at November 17, 2005 08:00 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The WSJ poll for 2006 puts Hackett up 45.2/35.3. Its good to keep in mind how carefully Rassmussen Reports is in making their polls as error-proof as possible. I don't want to jump the gun, but I'm already to call Ohio and Penn. for the donkeys.
DeWine doesn't stand a chance. I wouldn't put too much stock in that 29%- they wouldn't vote for him anyways. Unless their is a gay ballot initiative, those conservatives might just stay home.
Posted by: Citizen Sam at November 17, 2005 08:36 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'm guessing that they aren't showing Brown's numbers because both Hackett AND DeWine have been kicking his @ss in early polling. At least that's how the numbers have run in what I've seen to date.
Posted by: desi at November 17, 2005 09:18 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I prolly shouldn't say kicking his @ss, because actually, they've all been fairly close. Brown comes in 3rd.
Posted by: desi at November 17, 2005 09:20 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Desi: Rasmussen is an independent pollster. Why would they carry water for Brown?
Also, apart from the Zogby Fun-Tyme Almost-Polls (For Entertainment Purposes Only), there hasn't been any legit polling on this race. That whack-ass mail-in Columbus Dispatch which had a third of the vote undecided also doesn't count - though in that poll, in fact, Brown did better than Hackett against DeWine.
Posted by: DavidNYC at November 17, 2005 10:13 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
My mistake, David. I was thinking the numbers in this poll were different:
I may be getting my states mixed up, too. So many seats to win, so little time.
Posted by: desi at November 18, 2005 05:51 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment