Sunday, November 27, 2005

Thoughts on the Latest Field Poll

As the Jets and Saints are playing, and I couldn't care less who wins, I thought I’d put some thoughts together on Field’s latest survey, this one of name-id of next year’s statewide candidates.

As I’m a Republican, and don’t really know much about what goes on on the other side of the aisle, I’ll stick to commenting on our guys.


GOVERNOR

Governator
92% Name-ID
Overall 38-54 Approve/Disapprove
74-19 Among Republicans

As far as I’m concerned, the big news of this survey is somehow, 8% of the state hasn’t heard of Governor Schwarzenegger. Seriously, who are these people? And isn’t there a legit case to be made that these people should be disenfranchised?

I’m confident the 38% Approve will be remedied, but the thing to watch is how much of the 74-19 base vote will have to be sacrificed to bring it up elsewhere?

LG

Senator Tom McClintock
53% Name-ID
Overall 35-18 A/D
55-8 Among Republicans
23-27 Among Democrats
25-18 Among Independents

If Tom McClintock had the Name ID Arnold had, his approvals would be 61%, a staggeringly high number for a Republican legislator, especially a conservative one.

That his Approvals are nearly 7:1 among Republicans isn’t particularly newsworthy, though being a State Senator with 63% Name-ID among Republicans at least is worthy of note.

What’s more interesting is the barely less than 1:1 rating among Democrats, and nearly 1.4:1 among Independents.

All in all, any Democrat is going to have their work cut out for them if they plan to beat Tom in 2006.

AG

Senator Chuck Poochigian
14% Name-ID
Overal 8-6 A/D
11-7 Among Republicans

Senator Poochigian’s numbers are undeniably disappointing. As a veteran Central Valley legislator, and the high-profile author of Arnold’s Worker’s Comp Reform, how can Senator Poochigian’s numbers be so low?

I mean, the survey claims to have an margin of error of 5%, but there’s no way that’s true, as it also claims that Phil Kurzner has 15% Name-ID, and while I like the good Doc, there is no way 15 out of every 100 people know him.

But what is telling, is that margin aside, how are Pooch’s numbers even within the margin of Kurzner’s?

And as someone who has largely stayed out of the Central Valley GOP’s Civil Wars, how are his approvals among Republicans only 1.5:1?

This is serious cause for concern, and something that Poochigian and Khachigian are going to have to remedy!

TREASURER

Richman and Parrish both have 14% Name-ID.

Richman has 8-6 overall numbers, with 6-5 among Republicans.

Parrish is 6-8 overall, with 7-12 among Republicans.

Neither are good. Obviously, if another candidate doesn’t get in this race, Lockyer wins without even breaking a sweat.

CONTROLLER

Senator Abel Maldonado, having just finished up a hugely expensive State Senate race encompassing 1/40 of the state and several major media markets, comes in with 20% statewide Name-ID, broken evenly at 10 up and 10 down.

Interestingly, he shows only 9% approval among Republicans, with 13% disapproval.

Former Assemblyman Tony Strickland has even more lackluster numbers. While he shows a surprising 18% statewide recognition, he comes in at 1:1.5 negatives, and even more shocking, Tony’s numbers are more than 1:2 negative among Republicans!

SECRETARY OF STATE

Bruce McPhereson
28% Name-ID
19-9 A/V
23-11 Among Republicans

While only more than a quarter of the state has any reasonable idea who Bruce McPhereson is, among those who do, he has pretty good standing for an appointed Republican officeholder.

More than 2:1, both among all voters and the electorate at large, Bruce’s status as appealing to moderates has served him well.

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER

This race will get so much attention on the blogs elsewhere, I’ll point to just one number, that I will deem the “Poizner Index,” that being his negative rating among Republicans. We’ll see if the Republican grassroots can bring this number high enough to cost Steve the nomination.

This survey, the benchmark for the “Poizner Index,” has it at 7%.

8 Comments:

At 11/27/2005 8:47 PM, Anonymous a question said...

How come you analyze all of the numbers, then punt the IC numbers as if they are immaterial?

Could it be because both Kurzner and Poizner have 12% Republican name ID...

...and Kurzner has a HIGHER NEGATIVE rating among Republicans then Poizner?

...or maybe because Kurzner has a HIGHER POSITIVE rating amongs democrats, then Poizner?

How funny is that?

I suppose you will now say that the field poll doesnt really matter, even though that makes you look like an idiot since you based your entire thread on it?

Allow me to repeat:

Kurzner is more disapproved of by republicans then Poizner, AND Kurzner is more APPROVED of, by democrats.

Oops. Thats not part of the strategy is it?

 
At 11/27/2005 10:24 PM, Blogger Pete St. John said...

No, it's because the IC race already is talked about too much and is beginning to bore me.

 
At 11/28/2005 11:03 AM, Blogger NickM said...

Poizner's name ID right now is based primarily from his work for Prop 77. It's not surprising that he has picked up decent numbers among Republicans and poor numbers among Democrats from that. It still won't help him much when voters in Southern California find out he's a Gore Republican.

Nick

 
At 11/28/2005 12:49 PM, Anonymous correctornator said...

you didn't read the field poll correctly.

the poll asked people to answer: "..whether your opinion of that person is favorable,
unfavorable or whether you don't yet know enough about that person." it didn't ask if they knew who these people were.

name id and opinion of these people are completely different so your thoughts about what the numbers mean are misguided.

i am curious about what you assumed was a portion of the population that didn't know who schwarzenegger is. you asked if these people should be disenfranchised.

i'd like to know how you propose disenfranchising californians?

 
At 11/28/2005 1:47 PM, Blogger Charlie Regan said...

I don't think Pooch's numbers are surprising in the least. He is from Fresno, after-all, and he is notoriously averse to getting involved in Primary battles or anything controversial, where his name might get some exposure. He is paying the price for having never jumped into the arena. Pooch is a backwater legislator and a nice guy, but you know what they say about nice guys...

 
At 11/28/2005 10:02 PM, Anonymous Poizner's Numbers Are the Worst said...

What was most remarkable was that Poizner had the worst overall favorability numbers of any of the IC candidates and that his name I.D. was so low. Even Bustamante's poor favorability was 1:1 among the overall electorate while Poizner's was 3:1 NEGATIVE.

This has to be particularly distressing to Poizner given the several million dollars he spent on Bay Area TV just last year and his being featured in TV advertising for Prop. 77 DURING THE EXACT SAME TIME THIS POLL WAS CONDUCTED.

Mendoza had the highest hard name I.D. of Republican candidates - at 18% - while Kurzner and Poizner were tied at 15% each. Mendoza also had the best favorable numbers among Republicans of the three. Yes, Kurzner's numbers among Republicans were weaker than Poizner's but neither was worth writing home about and clearly a number of voters don't know much yet about the good doctor but still offered an opinion.

Again, Kurzner has spent no money on voter contact while Poizner was featured in the press on Prop. 77 and has spent millions on voter contact in the last year.

This shows that Poizner's Prop. 77 strategy was a disaster - the initiative lost badly while he not only wasn't helped but was actually hurt by his involvement. The bottom line - Poizner is going to have to spend a lot more than he planned to have a shot at winning after these very bad polling numbers.

 
At 11/29/2005 12:37 PM, Blogger NickM said...

Before voters know much about you, the context of name ID is what they base their opinions on. Right now, if you threw Mike Scioscia's name into a list of candidates for a statewide office, he would probably lead a poll of that nature, because he has high name ID, connected with a generally favorable situation. It doesn't mean it would stay favorable as those same voters learned more about him.

Nick

 
At 12/04/2005 2:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sounds like that Pierre Prosper fellow doesn't have to worry about the Name ID as much as his campaign may have originally thought. Heard through the grapevine he's got $ in from Colin Powell, and is actually considering the US Senate bid. Why mess with Pooch & his low name ID - and 3 mill.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home