Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Breaking it Down: The 6/29 PPP Ohio Gubernatorial Poll

Public Policy Polling (PPP) is a very well respected national Democratic polling firm.

Their most recent poll, released yesterday, shows John Kasich leading Ted Strickland 43%-41%, or well within the 4.5% margin of error.

Unlike most other polls that test the Ohio Governor's race, PPP is particularly transparent about whom they are testing and their Party ID.

This poll tested registered voters. As we all know, registered voters tend to be less informed and traditionally skew left.

But PPP does a solid job of ensuring their sample reflects Ohio's Party ID breakdown better than what other polls have done.

This poll's sample included questions about Party ID and for whom respondees voted for in 2008.

Party ID reflected very close to the 2008 exit polls, with 44% Dem, 38% GOP, and 18% Independent. The respondees also polled very close to the 2008 results with 50% having voted for Obama and 44% having gone for McCain.

In other words, this poll has my respect.

So let's get to the dirty details.

The Topline
As we said before, Kasich is leading, though his lead has shrunk by 3 points.

Strickland's approval sits at an amazingly low 37%, up slightly from 33% three months ago. His net approval rating is a Corzine-like -11. 37% approve. 48% disapprove. That is massively bad news for Strickland.

Kasich made some changes as well. After two months of being massively outspent with attack TV ads. And with no response from the GOP that introduced Kasich to the voters, that was bound to happen. The results? Kasich's net favoribility rating went from +1 to -2. That's it. After all those hard dollars spent, Strickland saw a measly 3 point swing. A swing that is within the margin of error of the poll. Embarrassing.

McCain/Obama Voters
This is where it gets pretty interesting. Try to keep up.

To start, Strickland's favorability showed only minor changes from March among Obama and McCain voters.

But Kasich did show some movement. Among McCain voters Kasich went to from 39-17 in March to a 50-12 favorable/unfavorable rating. That's a 16 point net improvement. Inversely, Kasich went from 13-31 among Obama voters in March to 9-47. The money spent by the Dems against Kasich worked, right?!


Despite his heightened negatives, the number of Obama voters that support Kasich more than doubled from March to June. Money well spent, eh Dems?

Party ID
Strickland's approval ratings among Democrats showed a decent improvement, going from +30 to +39. But his approval rating among Republicans shrank by 5 points. I guess that NRA endorsement didn't do much, eh?

Ted's best gain came among Independents, going from -26 approval to -11 (though still at a lowly 36). Kasich's numbers among Indies barely changed, going from a +3 to a +1.

Another interesting way to look at it is to compare Indie approval relative to overall name ID. While only 17% of Independents don't know Strickland, his approval rating sits at just 36%. Meanwhile, a full 41% of Indies don't know Kasich, and he sits only 6 points back from Strickland in favorability.

So what happens when these Independents vote? They go overwhelmingly to John Kasich, 45-26. That means even Indies that don't know Kasich are still preferring to pull the lever for the challenger over the incumbent.

But did Independent support change from the last time? Yes, but only by 4 points, or within the margin of error.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Ted can't win unless he spins positively about his own record while also substantively attacking Kasich. So far he hasn't done that.

While his numbers have shown some improvement, they are light years away from where they need to be in order to make this race competitive in the fall.

Ultimately, this poll highlights that no matter how desperately you try to change the numbers of your opponent, an incumbent can't run from his record.

And Kasich hasn't even presented his case yet.

Ted, you're running out of time. It may be time to start praying for a miracle.


  1. ROTFL.... You really are nuts.

    First, Strickland gained four points in the head to head, not three.

    Kasich saw his advantage with male voters evaporate entirely. He's underwater or, at best, tied, on his favorability ratings. And Strickland saw an 8 point improvement on his approval rating with independents.

    PPP shows Kasich souring and Strickland improving.

    I'm always amazed at your ability to cherry pick data... and still get it wrong.

    The race is already competitive. And PPP is another poll that shows Kasich peaked last winter.

  2. First off, "ROTFL"? I had no idea you were a 14-year old girl.

    But let's make this simple for you.

    The topline went from 42-37 to 43-41.

    It went from +5 to +2.

    That's a net gain of 3. Not 4, as you claim.

    Trend lines show Kasich's favorability only changing within the margin of error. And still in the positive(unlike Ted).

    I've always said it's competitive.

    Which has to be a bummer for you guys since your side has already outspent us 3-1.

  3. Um, RGA spent more money than DGA has in the race. Kasich has spent more money that Strickland... while running no ads.

    Your 3:1 is an interesting talking point, but I don't think it's actually factual.

    Kasich has been burning money like a Lehman Brothers exec managing Ohio's pensions. Too soon?

  4. You're being purposefully dense, right? It's all part of a ruse of some sort. It's gotta be.

    Because after all your stalking of me you would HAVE to know that the 3-1 ratio comes from all dollars spent on Paid TV. That includes from the candidates, Parties, and third parties(read: Unions).

    As for your Lehmann comment. No, not too soon. In fact, keep it up. These polls show it isn't making even close to enough of a difference to win this race for your old boss.

  5. A. If you're going to mock someone for using text language in a post to your forum, you shouldn't use it yourself (check your own posts to the Quinnipiac polls post - you used LOL).

    B. Third parties - if you want to "read: Unions" let's thrown in there read: old white guys who are protecting their butts in big business.

    C. Commenting or even reading, opposing sides' blogs, talking points, literature, information, or press releases isn't stalking, it's smart, tactical information grabbing. If you only listen or absorb information or spin from those you believe in, you'll stain your teeth from the kool-aid.

  6. Anonymous,

    A) Ha! Fair enough. Though ya gotta admit "ROTFL" is a little ridiculous. :-)

    B) "Old white guys..." haven't spent money on TV attacking or promoting anyone. Unions have. 'Nuff said.

    C) Obviously, I have no problem with commenting or keeping up with your opposition. But Modern takes it to a whole other level. If you think Modern's obsession with this blog seems normal, that's up to you. I, and very clearly many of my readers, disagree.

  7. Bob Riley (AL), white, male, 56yo
    Sean Parnell, (AK): white, male, 48
    Arnold Schwarzenegger (CA): white, male, 63
    Charlie Crist (at time of election was Rep, FL): white, male, 54
    Sonny Perdue (GA): white, male, 64
    Butch Otter (ID): white, male, 68
    Mitch Daniels (IN): white, male, 61
    Tim Pawlenty (MN): white, male, 50
    Haley Barbour (MS): white, male,63
    Dave Heineman (NE): white, male, 62
    Jim Gibbons (NV): white, male, 66
    Chris Christie (NJ - your favorite!): white, male, 48
    John Hoeven (ND): white, male,53
    Donald Carcieri (RI): white, male,68
    Mark Sanford (SC): white, male, 50
    Mike Rounds (SD): white, male, 56
    Rick Perry (TX): white, male, 60
    Gary Herbert (UT): white, male,63
    Jim Douglas (VT): white, male, 59
    Bob McDonnell (VA): white, male, 56

    Jan Brewer - female (AZ)
    M. Jodi Rell - female (CT)
    Linda Lingle - female (HI)
    Bobby Jindal (LA): asian, male, 39yo

    Of the 24 Republican Governors, who make up the REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR'S ASSOCIATION that funded ads against Strickland, 4 are either female or non-white and the remaining 20 have an average age of 55.4 which qualifies them for AARP membership.

    83% of those governors in the RGA are white, male and an average age over 55. Dude, that's old white guys.

  8. Anonymous,

    I already have very clearly stated that the RGA paid for TV ads. That's where the "1" comes from in the "3-1" ratio.

    Fact: Strickland and Friends of Strickland have outspent Kasich and Friends of Kasich by approximately 3-1 on TV.

    Fact: Dems didn't get their money's worth.

  9. Fact you have one commenter (Scarlet>Fox) besides me.

    Fact: Strickland's numbers are improving, Kasich's souring.

    Fact: You've denied this the past 24 hours.

    Fact: You can't stand to be told your wrong, even when you clearly were. (Kilroy-TARP, Brown's comments about the 2nd Amendment, polling data, etc.)

    Now, quit commenting like a Nick LeShay ad for Cincinnati Bell.

  10. Um... Strickland's favorabilities are still positive... in every poll.

    You're wrong.... AGAIN!

  11. PPP shows Kasich with negative favorability... Wrong again.

  12. So we're only counting spending on TV now? Silly me, I thought all spending matters.

  13. Wtf, Modern?

    Just in this poll alone, Ted is at -11 in approval.

    As for Kasich, did you not read this quote from my post? "Kasich's net favoribility rating went from +1 to -2."

    Please think before commenting.

  14. Um, approval is not the same thing as favorability.

    And you wrote:
    "Trend lines show Kasich's favorability only changing within the margin of error. And still in the positive(unlike Ted)."

    Take your own advice for once.

  15. Ah, a fair point on the mistake I made in the comments. Though I was very clear in the post that Kasich was slightly in the negative.

    Still waiting for you to acknowledge your plethora of mistakes.

  16. I'm still waiting on your admittance that old white dudes did pay for stuff ("B) "Old white guys..." haven't spent money on TV attacking or promoting anyone."

    but you also state (actually correctly) "I already have very clearly stated that the RGA paid for TV ads. That's where the "1" comes from in the "3-1" ratio."


No profanity, keep it clean.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.