Rassmussen Shows High Bennet Unfavorables

Thanks for stopping by Aaron

How are the tumbleweeds blowin over at barren wasteland?

---

by: redstateblues @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 20:49:49 PM UTC

I don't get out there much

I posted this one up there a little while after I posted here, but in truth I have not done much blogging anywhere lately. I was up on the FP here recently, but blogging just isn't my thing these days.

For work, I tend to disappear between Jan-Jun altogether, so this is probably one of my last posts for a while. You are always in my heart, though.

---

by: Aaron Silverstein @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 21:17:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Whoopsie, Aaron.

I think you forgot part of the poll. Here, let me help you out:

Jane Norton (R)

45%

Andrew Romanoff (D)

34%

Jane Norton (R)

46%

Michael Bennet (D)

37%

In a matchup, Senator Bennet is 3 points ahead of Romanoff when matched up against Norton. I'm sure you meant to mention that and it's just an oversight.

"I wouldn't characterize caloric intake as "professional development." c rork

---

by: Middle of the Road @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 21:08:17 PM UTC

General Election Numbers

I didn't ignore it. I referenced it in the very first line and linked to the poll itself.

Between the margin of error, the pollster, the time until November, and a more closely divided Dem primary, I would be careful about putting too much stock in those general election numbers.

But if Bennet wants to lean on them, I would advise against the "I lose by a smaller margin" argument.

This poll sends a signal to Bennet that he has to quell his negatives. I think there is a ton of time to do that, but he has to go and do it. He can't just ignore that vulnerability because of his relative showing in the head to head.

---

by: Aaron Silverstein @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 21:25:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hmmm.

No, I just reread your diary and you linked to the poll but pretty much completely ignored the match up numbers for the general.

And thank for the caution statement--I generally don't put too much stock in Rasmussen polls but I think they are a good wake up call to both my candidate and yours, no?

"I wouldn't characterize caloric intake as "professional development." c rork

---

by: Middle of the Road @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 22:58:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

has to quell his negatives

Those are great points, Aaron, and I would also hope Bennet's folks don't put too much stock in losing by a smaller margin nearly within the margin of error. it doesn't mean a lot. Keep in mind, though, a lot of the unfavorables are there because of high anti-incumbent sentiment and anger at government. Incumbency has its advantages, but it has its disadvantages too. Bennet's got his work cut out for him.

---

by: RedGreen @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 02:40:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Net Favorable Opinion 9 points vs 7 point Net Unfavorable Opinion ???

But the incumbency.... the incumbency....

Elsewhere in the poll:

Against Norton, Bennet scores 37%/46%, Romanoff scores 34%/45%. The difference between Bennet and Romanoff in that face-up is inside the margin of error (4.5%), meaning there is no difference.

Pitted against Buck or Wiens, esentially no difference between MB and AR.

Evidently the Incumbency Impact hasn't Impacted yet. Does the Incumbency Impact ever run the other way, as "net negative opinion generator"?

---

by: JO @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 21:14:40 PM UTC

I always question Rasmussen Polls

They tend to be skewed by the person/group paying for the poll more so than other national polling companies.

In this case I would quetion a poll where 62% of the respondents know who ken Buck is enough to have an opinion of him one way or the other.

Ditto Tom Wiens who got 64% to have an opinion about him.

Retirement in action does not equal retirement of beliefs.

---

by: Dan Willis @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 23:43:56 PM UTC

Unless I'm mistaken

I believe Rasmussen was the most accurate pollster in 2008

TABOR4LIFE

---

by: Muhammad Ali Hasan @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 05:24:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think it was

most "accurately described as a Republican pollster in 2008".


Put aside your egos and differences and forge one effort to take back our government for the people. - MadMike

---

by: PrettyBlue @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 21:39:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

CO-Sen

For the Colorado Senate race, they weren't too far off in the final months in 2008, but they had Udall behind until March.

You can argue if Udall really was behind or not, but either way it still casts doubt on their head to head numbers this far out.

---

by: Aaron Silverstein @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 22:24:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

i think we can all agree

that we primary voters are glad that there is finally polling being done.
so much of the back and forth here is based on our interactions with voters, yet that doesn't matter without polling.
Add to that fact, that even the best polling (which is not Rasmussen) does not factor in cell phone only voters, which is now a very large percentage of voters.
(hey maybe we could get a poll of how many voters are cell phone only - hey wait, D'OH!)

---

by: wade norris @ Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 00:57:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed, Wade

There needs to be better polling. More polling, and better polling.

---

by: redstateblues @ Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 02:10:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Or at least non-biased polling

The reason I am skeptical of Rasmussen is they allow their clients to dictate the demographics which will be polled. This may or may not reflect a typical election trunout pool.

Now, not all of their clients take this option and go a route where they allow Rasmussen to pick the demographics based on what they (Rasmussen) believes best reflects the electorate. When this is done, Rasmussen gets very accurate results.

So before I take ANY poll serious, I want to know who paid for it, how were the questions worded, and how were the demographics selected.

Retirement in action does not equal retirement of beliefs.

---

by: Dan Willis @ Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 14:56:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Excellent point Dan

---

by: redstateblues @ Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 19:27:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rasmussen said themselves

That the only really valid numbers at this point at Very Favorable and Very Unfavorable, because those are people who have a real, formed opinion. The other numbers are just a shot in the dark, since most people aren't paying attention.

---

by: Colorado Pols @ Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 19:40:01 PM UTC