Rasmussen Reports released a poll Sunday showing Mike Johanns with a sizable lead over Scott Kleeb: Mike Johanns: 55% Scott Kleeb: 40% Ras sez:
Johanns is supported by 78% of Republicans, Kleeb by 72% of Democrats, and unaffiliated voters are evenly divided.The Favorables looked like this:
Johanns is viewed favorably by 65% of the state’s voters, including 27% who have a Very Favorable opinion of the Republican candidate. Kleeb is viewed favorably by 56%, a figure that includes 17% with a Very Favorable opinion of the Democratic hopeful.
Favorable Ratings for Senate Candidates in Nebraska | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Johanns | Kleeb | ||
Very Favorable | 27% | 17% | |
Somewhat Favorable | 38% | 39% | |
Somewhat Unfavorable | 20% | 23% | |
Very Unfavorable | 12% | 13% | |
Not Sure | 3% | 9% | |
***
Rasmussen also indicates that Dave Heineman is getting high marks as Governor:
Sixty-four percent (64%) of Nebraska voters say Heineman is doing a good or an excellent job as Governor. Just 9% say he is doing a poor job.As Rasmussen points out, that's a good sign for statewide Republicans as well.
***
The poll also showed John McCain over Barack Obama.
McCain 50%And McCain will be in Nebraska next month...
Obama 39%
***
Annnnnnd while Rasmussen is polling, a poll-ee reported into Leavenworth Street that a polling outfit out of Fargo (you betcha) called, [actually , it seems that it is Survey USA] asking lots and lots of questions about:
- the state of Omaha affairs;
- Mike Fahey's performance;
- Hal Daub's performance when he was Mayor; and
- a question about Mike Johanns thrown in there for good measure.
Posts
38 comments:
Too bad Paul Eurek, Beau McCoy, James Jeffers, Tony Fulton, and Scott Lautenbaugh couldn't get in on some of that 64% action last Tuesday.
Rass also showed 44% of Nebraskans thought Bush is doing a good job, while 40% thought he is doing a poor job. You have to admit, SS, that all those numbers point to Johanns being very vulnerable. Given all his "experience", you would think he would have FAR more than 55%. He was just as publicized as Kleeb, probably more. Nope, not a good sign for him at all.
No,
Considering that MJ, for a while, will be tied to the Bush admin on most issues, the fact that he's polling 11% higher than the President is very good. The fact that he is where he is in spite of the President's numbers shows he's in good shape.
Seriously, 11% is good in Nebraska for a Republican who is a former Mayor of Lincoln and two-term governor? What were you drinking this morning?
If the Kleeb camp thinks these numbers point to a potential victory, they are sorely mistaken. Johanns favorables are the key number. Mike is nowhere near 50% and there is nothing the Kleebites can do to drive his numbers below that threashold.
Primary night victory speeches...Johanns was his usual cool, calm and collected with the gov standing right behind him...Kleeb...sweating like a pig, trying to rally the crowd with "hope and change" and makeup not covering the acne very well. Dems put a lock on Johanns victory in the Fall by not going with Tony.
Anon at 7:54 says Johanns is "very vulnerable"?! Democrats are so used to losing elections 70-30, they must believe 55% is a bad thing. If Kleeb outdoes Johanns in absolutely everything, Kleeb is still going to be down. Is Johanns a lock? No, not in the present climate. But is he "very vulnerable"? C'mon...Kleeb has a slim chance, but Johanns is closer to 65% than Kleeb is to 50%. Get real.
SS is right. Kleeb's inexperience and issue leanings will, when NE voters begin to care, weigh much more against Kleeb than Bush will against Johanns. Johanns wasn't the White House Press Secty. His Ag Secty term will be viewed, like his governor terms, as exec experience, compared to Kleeb who has less experience than some in the Unicameral.
Kleeb's inexperience and leftness is like that of Obama. Does anyone think Nebraska is going to vote for Obama?
PRO-CHOICE, PRO-SAME SEX MARRIAGE, PRO TAX, PRO OBAMA, and NO RESUME....In a presidential year Kleeb has no shot of catching up to Johanns.
Also, remember gang, that Johanns hasn't spent a dime yet and Kleeb hasn't raised one. It might be a bad year for Republicans, but it won't be here.
Anony at 3:36...
Johanns has run ads and Kleeb has raised a decent amount of money -- though you could argue not enough to be competitive, yet.
Let's not go overboard.
Bob --- I take issue with Kleb's in experience.
He has more time CAMPAIGNING than being a ranch hand or being a history teacher.
SO THERE!!!!!!
You of the Republic party in Nebraska can't be too pleased with this year's climate. Exhibit 1) is the results from the Legislative races. I mean Mike Foley's southeast Lincoln district nearly going blue. That's not a good sign for you folks. Plus 77 percent of Nebraskans think this country is on the wrong track. Mock it all you want, but change is a powerful message. If Kleeb gets enough money, Johanns is in serious trouble. SS admits Kleeb has had some success raising money. He's also bumped up his poll numbers. Kleeb's not in the red zone, but he's definetly moving the ball on Johanns' side of the field.
Almost going blue? You must be kidding! The primary is hardly a good measure for any successes to be claimed by the Dems. Nebraska Repubs had nothing to show up for last Tuesday.
1) McCain is the Prez Nominee
2) Johanns is the Senate Nominee
3) All three of the Congressional were advancing
4) State Legislative? Who cares?
I'm sure most people couldn't even tell you who their current state representative is - why would the state races motivate them to show up to a primary that doesn't matter?
Just wait until the pile drive that all the dem candidates have coming their way!
Why must all the dems gain a yard, and claim a touchdown?
When Kleeb promised to take the secret ballot away from the working people of Nebraska to pay off union support and political contributions, he is trading his soul for their pieces of silver.
A man that will blantantly sell his soul and in turn take away the fundamental right of our countryman, the secret ballot, does not deserve the trust of people. And does not deserve my vote.
Though other Democrats are willing to turn their backs on this fundamental issue. I will NEVER vote for a candidate who promises to take liberty and freedom from the hard works anywhere on this planet.
If Kleeb wants my vote back he will give big union money back and assure me my "secret ballot" is sacred.
Don't let me down Scott Kleeb --- do what is "right and good."
I bet it's Fahey doing the poll - looking for numbers pre and post CWS to see what his possible re-elect looks like.
Anonymous said...
... Given all his "experience", you would think he [Johanns] would have FAR more than 55%.
Sorry, anon. You have this backwards. Johanns is well-known in Nebraska, and his favorability is very high. And because Nebraskans believe they know him (and likely do), that rating is solid.
Kleeb, on the other hand, is an unknown. Unknowns always start out with inflated favorability ratings that soon get knocked down as the voters find out more about them.
Johanns ratings will stay pretty close to what they are now. Kleeb's will take big hits between now and November.
This polling is very good news for Republicans.
I think its important to note that Johanns had a chance to stay and pass a farm bill but instead came home to win an election, makes you wonder if he is looking out for himself or the little guy. And that is sure to be brought up sometime this fall...
To anonymous at 9:15 am: It wasn't Mike Johanns that kept the farm bill from passing. Ask Senator Nelson and his buddy Harry Reid why the bill has languished. The democrats have been trying to tie up every major bill with pork and major spending. It is a widely held belief in DC that Johanns was one of the best AG Secretarys in recent memory. He worked with all groups and ran the department efficiently.
So I guess "when the going gets tough", Johanns doesn't.
Yes, Mikey did such a great job as ag secretary, he let his people waste millions of dollars going to over 6700 conferences just in 2006 alone. Places like Hawaii to learn about Congress, an Australian resort to learn bout Mississippi crayfish, and lots and lots of trips to Las Vegas and Disney World. Some of the biggest waste in history. No wonder he had to close all those FSA offices - they had resorts to go to!
And Mikey did such a great job with the Farm Bill, he left long before it was done. He actually tries to say his job was done! Wrong....the current ag secretary has been working directly with congress and the conference committee. But then, Mikey never worked with the Congress. He just sent his lakey, Chuck Connor to do all his work for him as, as Mikey puts it, he enjoyed traveling all over the world.
As for who held up the Farm Bill, ask the Republicans that tried to attach a lot of Iraq spending issues to it, and caused a major delay, ones that Republican Chuck Grassley publically stated were some of the main reasons for the delay (Grassley being one of those few Republicans that actually tries to do his job rather than playing the games).
pol observer,
It is/was clearly part of the serial quitter's job to stay on the job and shepherd the bill through the House and Senate! Instead he quit, per usual. It is undeniable that he left with that important work not finished.
Also if you want to abbreviate Agriculture because you can't spell it 'Ag.' would be better than "AG", Johanns the serial quitter as a (of course short term) Attorney General is a scary thought. Also the plural form of secretary is secretaries. Just trying to help.
To Anonymous (11:04 AM)
Also if you want to abbreviate Agriculture because you can't spell it 'Ag.' would be better than "AG", Johanns the serial quitter as a (of course short term) Attorney General is a scary thought. Also the plural form of secretary is secretaries. Just trying to help.
1) There should be commas after "Also" and "spell it."
2) Unless you're trying to pretend you're British, the comma goes inside the quotation marks enclosing "AG." That's standard American usage. (Ashamed of being an American, eh?)
3) The clause "the serial quitter as a (of course short term) Attorney General" should be set within commas.
4) ..."the serial quitter as a ... Attorney General" -- maybe you mean "of an" rather than "as a"? (By the way, "an" is the article to be used when preceding a noun beginning with a soft vowel sound, in this case "attorney.")
5) A comma would be recommended after "of course," of course.
6) "Attorney General" doesn't really need to be capped in the "serial quitter" clause. Here, the term is describing a position, it's not being used as a title. Examples: U.S. President Bill Clinton (title); Bill Clinton, the disgraced U.S. president (description).
Just trying to help.
Mikey is still a quitter no matter how ya wanna slice & dice it. Reminds me of a little boy who ran home to his momma as fast as he can so the big bad bullies didn't get him. Always hiding behind the GOP's skirt. Nebraska is just too comfy and cozy for the little QUITTER!!!
red headed prophet wrote: Nebraska is just too comfy and cozy for the little QUITTER!!!
Wow, all caps and three exclamation points. You're full of passion, huh?
The sentence makes no sense, of course, but I guess that doesn't matter. Who cares about content? What really counts is that you're so full of LEFT-WING PASSION!!!
That's pretty much the liberal mindset, I suppose: It doesn't matter if what you say makes sense as long as you say it LOUD ENOUGH and OFTEN ENOUGH!!!
GO KLEEB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YAY!!!!!!!!!
P.S. Kleeb will lose by at least 10 percentage points. No amount of dreaming will make it otherwise.
Yup, I'm full of passion! Looks like you are, too!!!! (count'em 4)
By the way, does anyone know who Johanns' hair stylist is? Curious minds want to know.
Anonymous, 11:31
Thank you so much for your help with grammar. I wonder if you are a former English Teacher that just hangs out here now still attempting to ply your old trade? Did you lose your job just for falling in love with with a 15-year old boy? I found many of your suggestions to be really just that either/or suggestions and actually quite comma-happy and stilted (but maybe such is life on the far right). I find a more conversational style of writing to be more reader appropriate for a blog.
Anyway, back at you with a correction for accuracy to your post that supersedes any of yours a great deal, this:
Anonymous 11:31 "Examples: U.S. President Bill Clinton (title); Bill Clinton, the disgraced U.S. president (description)."
Was obviously meant to read as this:
Examples: U.S. President Bill Clinton (title); George 'Bunnypants' Bush, the disgraced U.S. president (description).
(And of course I included the nickname because he is just so fond of them.)
So the little Snotty Kreep's election hangs on calling Johanns a "quitter" because he has been elected and appointed to increasingly more powerful positions?
Thats a nice strategy. Did you come up with that in detox?
Kleb can never be called a "quitter" because he has never had a full time job.
Great campaign ploy!!!!! (5)
Do you honestly believe that ALL politicians (elected to office or not) have ever held a full time job? Attorneys turned politicians don't count...you said full time, not part time (if you can even put them in a part time category...maybe 1/8 time). At least it looks impressive on their resume so they think.
So, it's OK to call Johanns a quitter because he has held a full time job?
Sounds good to me!
I'm sure all the people that work at the McGinn Ranch (at which they will tell you about Scott working right along side of them) will be appreciative to know they never work full-time.
I have talked to a person that did work side by side at the ranch with Scott and their testimony was even when they would work FULL TIME Scott did not hold up his end.
But that is he said and the other person said. Sometimes called a pissing contest.
The fact is Scott never did put up his Nebraska tax records to show he worked in Nebraska. So either he didn't work enought to get paid or he is a tax dodger. Either way it smells funny. Like Bull Sh*t.
And if you have ever been around a ranch there is always something to do on a "full time" basis. Whether it be fixing fence, doctoring cattle, fixing machinery or tending the fields.
Please don't make excuses for a facade!!!
Are you a full time worker if you have worked as an attorney in a law office for several years while holding a part-time job as an elected official. Are you a full-time worker if you run your own law firm managing a small staff and meeting a budget while trying cases and still holding said position in elected office?
Or are you a full-time worker if you publicly quit your job and announce that you will be a full-time candidate for elected office 18 months before the General Election? By the way, who did pay Jim's bills for a year and a half and where did he get the $35,000 he gave his campaign, not to mention the $116,000 he lent it? Oh, and exactly when did he become Managing Partner in his family's real estate partnership? Was it before his 4 month "Sabbatical" somewhere, or ten minutes after his epiphany at the Dum Caucuses?
Voters are just wondering.
Anonymous (2:17 PM, May 20, 2008) wrote: Thank you so much for your help with grammar.
No problem. For the record, I seldom offer corrections to other writers on blogs. I tend to think their errors are more the result of typing quickly than of anything else. But I can't resist jumping in when someone who knows little of what he or she speaks (e.g., you) actually goes about correcting others for the very sins they ignorantly (and often) commit.
I should mention, however, that most of the mistakes you made were not matters of grammar but of punctuation. They're not the same thing, although I'm not surprised you seem to think so. People with little knowledge of grammar, punctuation, syntax, etc., tend to lump them all together.
I wonder if you are a former English Teacher that just hangs out here now still attempting to ply your old trade?
Nope. But you were so busy "helping" others with their typos I thought I'd help you with yours.
I find a more conversational style of writing to be more reader appropriate for a blog.
This "conversational" style you prefer -- is that code for getting things wrong? If so, I agree that this is in fact your style.
I'm left wondering, however: Why is a "conversational" style O.K. for you to use, but not O.K. for the post writer you critiqued?
(Is this kind of like Barbra Sreisand, the great liberal, telling her fellow Californians not to water their lawns during a state-wide drought while she was actually doing the opposite and increasing the water used to maintain her own? Why do you liberals consistently do this sort of thing?)
Anyway, back at you with a correction for accuracy to your post that supersedes any of yours a great deal, this:
I've read the above sentence three times and still cannot parse it.
"Examples: U.S. President Bill Clinton (title); Bill Clinton, the disgraced U.S. president (description)."
Was obviously meant to read as this:
Examples: U.S. President Bill Clinton (title); George 'Bunnypants' Bush, the disgraced U.S. president (description).
"Bunnypants" should take double quotation marks, not single quotation marks. But I suppose this is an either/or issue for you, too. [Sigh.]
Seriously, you're a terrible writer.
Anonymous, 12:42 PM, May 21, 2008;
I just, saw, your, little turd, in the, punch bowl. Seriously, you're, a critic, with no room, to, criticize others, and their writing skills. A of course short term Attorney General would be correct (don't let the parenthetical fool you). An of course short term attorney general would be wrong on no capitalization of a certain and specific title and the "A" instead of "An" should be clear now that I helped you see past the parenthesis (short is the key word). No charge for the help, and, I, think, you, can see, what I think, of your, suggestions for all those extraneous,,, commas. ;>)
Anonymous, 12:42 PM, May 21, 2008;
I just, saw, your, little turd, in the, punch bowl. Seriously, you're, a critic, with no room, to, criticize others, and their writing skills. A of course short term Attorney General would be correct (don't let the parenthetical fool you). An of course short term attorney general would be wrong on no capitalization of a certain and specific title and the "A" instead of "An" should be clear now that I helped you see past the parenthesis (short is the key word). No charge for the help, and, I, think, you, can see, what I think, of your, suggestions for all those extraneous,,, commas. ;>)
Wrong again. "An" would be used before either "attorney" or "of" -- because both begin with a soft vowel. You obviously have no idea when to use an "an" and when to use an "a." You should look it up before you embarrass yourself again.
The rest of your missive is frankly gibberish. I have no idea what you are trying to say about titles or capitalization. Although, knowing you, whatever it is you're trying to say is incorrect.
You write like you think -- very badly.
Post a Comment