Showing posts with label Ken Blackwell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ken Blackwell. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Push Polling

Is this an admission from the Blackwell campaign in today's Columbus Dispatch that he is indeed push polling? From the Dispatch:

The Blackwell campaign this week is making "push poll" calls to Ohio voters, a deceptive method of using what appear to be legitimate surveys to spread a negative message about an opponent.

If recipients of such calls say they plan to vote for Strickland, a recorded voice is programmed to provide information about the former aide who "exposed himself" to children. A subsequent message details a vote Strickland cast in Congress on a resolution condemning sex between adults and children. Strickland, a psychologist, voted "present," saying he objected to a provision of the resolution that said sexually abused children could not have healthy relationships later in life.

I don't know that I have ever seen a candidate come right out and admit to using push polling. It's kind of bizarre. That is something you usually try to keep out of the press.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Lapped

A new Quinnipiac University poll just out this morning shows that Ted Strickland has now lapped Ken Blackwell in the Ohio gubernatorial race. Strickland leads by a 2-1 margin, or at least pretty close to it at 59-32. This one is over, it's all about coattails now.

Friday, September 22, 2006

New Polling

Survey USA has some new polling out that shows Ted Strickland leading Ken Blackwell 56-35 among likely voters. Strickland is over 50% in every demographic save two. Strickland only gets the support of 29% of conservatives, which is to be expected, but Strickland only gets 20% of the support of those who classify their race as other. While it shouldn't matter in this race, the Democrats should pay attention to this. The 2000 census shows that those who classify their race as other actually outnumber Hispanics. It is an untapped pool of voters that we should be courting.

The other good news from this poll is that again Sherrod Brown is over 50% leading Mike DeWine 52-42 and that for the first time that I have seen, Brown finally has a lead over DeWine among men 48-47, although that is well within the margin of error. Brown is crushing DeWine among women voters 55-36.

Women are going to propel us in this election. Strickland's lead among women in this survey is a whopping 28% (58-30). Make sure you tell every woman you know to vote.

Update: I see that SUSA also polled the OH-02 race and that the good Dr. Victoria Wuslin is within the margin of error (45-42) of Jean Schmidt on very hard turf for Democrats to win on.

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Yesterday's Debate

The Dispatch article on yesterday's gubernatorial debate here in Ohio opens with a great line. From the Dispatch:

Outside, two people wearing chicken outfits were arrested. Inside, two candidates for governor chickened out on a school-funding solution.

I agree, it's un-mother-clucking believable, but there is one fundamental truth to be known. The republicans have been running this state ever since the Ohio Supreme Court mandated that the problem be fixed. They haven't lifted a finger to do so, so their argument is a moot one.

And as for Ken Blackwell's 65% solution / fiasco, consider this, on Tuesday at Burroughs Elementary school on the west side of Columbus two young girls were attacked by a sexual predator. The school immediately hired security guards to patrol the school grounds. Under Blackwell's proposal this would not have been possible, at least not without getting rid of some other out of the classroom spending. Think about it.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

The Ohio Poll

The Ohio Poll has released their first poll of likely voters in Ohio and there is some good news for Democrats in it, and also a potential problem for us as well. First, the good news. Ted Strickland leads Ken Blackwell by 12 points, 50-38. Sherrod Brown leads Mike DeWine by 4 points 51-47.

Now, it is my opinion that the Ohio Poll skews a little bit farther to the right than most polling so for both of our candidates in these races to be over fifty percent is definitely a good thing. However, there is some danger lurking in the cross tabs.

The first potential problem is for down ticket Democrats running for office this year. A lot of them are going to need some good coat tails from a potential gubernatorial blowout. Strickland has a comfortable lead in most age groups, but in the 18-29 age group he holds a commanding lead of 66-28. That is great if the youth vote shows up on election day, but even among likely voters they are the ones most likely not to show up.

They are also some of the easiest ones to disenfranchise with voter ID requirements. They are at this point in their lives still fairly transient in nature, and very few update their drivers licences every time they move. They also tend to live in groups and some of them may not have a bill at their house in their name, or if they live in the dorms and their parents pay their bills then they also may fail to meet ID requirements. The various campus Democratic parties should be starting massive voter education drives informing voters what they will need to vote.

The second concern is for Sherrod Brown. It appears that for him to defeat Mike DeWine women are going to have to show up at the polls. His lead is based almost solely on his lead among women and they are, again, one of the groups most likely not to show up on election day. What to do about this, I'm just not sure.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Polling

I heard on NPR this morning that a new Q-Poll buts Ted Strickland ahead of Ken Blackwell by a margin of 55-34 among likely voters, sorry no link yet. It doesn't look like the Taxing Ted thing is taking hold. Bye Ken.

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Desperation: Smell It

The day after a group of prominent republicans announced they would endorse Ted Strickland, the GOP issued the most pathetic press release I have ever seen entitled "Slop & Sour Grapes." Dumb title, Dumb content. From Openers:


A day after blaming the media for keeping alive interest in convicted Republican kingmaker Tom Noe, who once was a darling of GOP fundraising, the Republican party now points out that Saxbe was once Noe's attorney on the case.

"That's right. Rocky Saxbe was hired to defend Mr. Corruption himself, the infamous coin dealer, Tom Noe," read the statement from state party spokesman John McClelland.

Also, Saxbe and his partners were paid $265 million for winning a $10.1 billion settlement for
Ohio in a multi-state lawsuit against tobacco companies.

Damn, did I miss the announcement that the party whose candidate won't release his tax returns now thinks that Ohio citizens should eschew making money? Even at the low rate Saxbe charged the state? I mean, is a lawyer charging his client 2-1/2% anything to get excited about? And sure, Saxbe defended Tom Noe for a time, but that is what lawyers do. If a lawyer defends a murderer, does that mean he believes murder is okay? Of course not.

More from Openers:


Saxbe is also the personal attorney for televangelist Rod Parsley, a major backer of Blackwell's policies. Blackwell spokesman Carlo LoParo said it was disingenuous for Saxbe to condemn Blackwell's social views and represent one of his biggest supporters.

This is fantastic. One of the things you should never do in a press release is say something that can be thrown right back in your candidates face. Thank you Carlo!!

So, if you would say that is disingenuous for Saxbe to condemn Blackwell while representing Parsley, would you also say that it is disingenuous for Blackwell to condemn abortion while investing in the company that makes Plan B? Or how about condemning gambling while investing in the manufacturer of slot machines? Seems pretty disingenuous to me!!

What you're seeing here is a tale of two very different politicians. Strickland is a man that can reach across party lines to unite Ohioans to serve the common good while Blackwell is divisive and pretty as he pushes for the good of few, against the needs of many.