Smith poll numbers keep plunging; now 3rd least popular senator

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

Here at BlueOregon, we've been trying to shout it from the rooftops - Gordon Smith is vulnerable. The good folks at the DPO's Stop Gordon Smith project have made it a steady refrain.

Now and again, though, I hear activists wonder if it's really true. After all, the well-dressed millionaire has managed to bamboozle Oregon voters before. Well, folks, Oregon voters are on to him. And, yes, he's really vulnerable. Very vulnerable.

In the latest SurveyUSA poll, released last week, Smith is down to 48% approval and 43% disapproval - just 5% net approval.

OK, that seems bad, but how bad is it? Here's a little context: Senator Ron Wyden is at 61% approval, 30% disapproval - 31% net. Yup, twice as many people approve of Wyden as disapprove.

Here's more context:

Over at Badlands Blue, a lefty blog from South Dakota, they put together a chart with all 34 Senators tracked by SurveyUSA. I've highlighted Wyden's and Smith's numbers.

Netapproval

That's right: Gordon Smith's net approval is worse than every Senator but two. Absolutely abysmal.

And here's a bit more context - the net approval numbers for both Smith and Wyden. Even at his highest point (right after the Iraq-is-Criminal speech), Smith's never had a net approval as high as Wyden's - and other than that blip, it's been on a steady downward trend.

Senateapprovals

So, yes, Gordon Smith is vulnerable. Take it to the bank.

[Full disclosure: My company built the websites for Stop Gordon Smith, Ron Wyden, and Jeff Merkley. I speak here only for myself.]

  • BCM (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Net approval...sure thing Frank Luntz.

    How about I turn this around on Wyden: 30% disapprove, 9% unsure. New poll: 39% of Oregonians do not approve of Wyden.

    Of course, that's not true. But that's what happens when statistics are generated from statistics. Net approval is once removed from reality and reality states that Smith has a comfortable 48% approval rating.

  • (Show?)

    48% is NOT comfortable. It's dismal.

  • (Show?)

    p.s. I didn't make up net approval. It's a stat that SurveyUSA itself provides.

  • BCM (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What's 30% percent then?

    Smith......48% Novick.....35%

    Smith......48% Merkley...30%

  • Ron (unverified)
    (Show?)

    48% You have to figure that can be eaten into as well. Once Merkley or Novick go head to head, hopefully their name recognition will improve along with poll numbers. Keep tying Smith to the war, wire tapping and lock step with the Bushies. How can the guy call the war "criminal" but never do anything else to stop it? Sad and pathetic.

  • Daniel Spiro (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Just as Chuck Schumer would like us to support the more-established Presidential candidate, who happens to do worse, head to head, against the Republican nominee, so would he like us to support the more-established Senatorial candidate who happens to do worse, head to head, against the Republican incumbent. Kari is pointing out yet another reason to support Novick.

    Smith and McCain are beatable, but only if they must defeat charismatic, inspiring candidates who provide the most decisive choice for voters. I'm talking about Obama and Novick.

  • backbeat12 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari, super sorry to go off topic but it is related to getting both Smith and Walden out of office. Did you see this bombshell? And isn't Greg Walden Chairman of the Audit committee?

    It all began to unravel when Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX), a CPA, asked to meet with the audit firm that was supposedly checking the NRCC's books, an idea that apparently no one had had for several years. Christopher Ward, then the NRCC's treasurer, finally relented, but then chickened out 30 minutes before and fessed up that there actually hadn't been any audits.

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/todays_must_read_290.php

  • backbeat12 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/02/greg-walden-and.html

    Greg Walden NRCC audit chair.

    implode implode implode! (do we have anybody running against Walden?)

  • Bert Lowry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The reason net approval is important is it takes into account the people who don't know or have no opinion. Yes, Sen. Smith has a higher approval rating than Steve Novick or Jeff Merkley. But he also has a much higher disapproval rating. Basically, more people know and have strong opinions about Sen. Smith than either Democrat.

    The intersting number is the net approval. That tells us how popular/unpopular the candidate is. 5% net approval is terrible. Sen. Smith is in trouble and his campaign knows it.

  • BCM (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bert, disapproval %'s tell us how unpopular a candidate is. Net approval is a manufactured statistic used by opposition pollsters to churn out dismally low %'s, like 5%. It gets so ridiculous that a candidate can have negative net approval ratings: 'Sen X has an approval rating of -12%.'It's meant for spin, not for serious discussion or analysis.

  • (Show?)

    What happened in January '07 to make Wyde's figures go up slightly and Smith's numbers to briefly spike?

    Was there a cookie bakeoff in the US Senate or something?

  • (Show?)

    BCM, your example, which you apparently think of as an indictment, is actually apt. It's another way of interpreting data. I think a responsible way of phrasing it would be, "while 61% of Oregonians approve of Wyden, 39% disaprove or aren't sure."

    In terms of electable viability, though 61% is pretty damn high--that's a landslide in any election.

    Compare that to Smith, where the sentence would read, "less than a majority of Oregonians approve of Smith, while 52% disapprove or aren't sure."

    You use data to try to create understanding and meaning. It's worth breaking the "unsure" votes out because that answer category is far less easy to interpret (are they unsure whether they support the politician, or unsure who he is?). But either way, you can see that Smith's in big trouble.

  • Bert Lowry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    BCM, I think a net approval of -12% is very meaningful. It tells us that more people disapprove of a candidate that approve. That's an important number if you're running for election.

    It's certainly a more important number that simply comparing approval (or disapproval) numbers between candidates. A candidate can get by on 48% approval if the other 52% have no opinion. The same candidate is in serious trouble if the other 52% disapprove.

  • (Show?)

    Net approval is a manufactured statistic used by opposition pollsters to churn out dismally low %'s, like 5%.

    You may eschew it, but it's hardly useful only for spin. It contrasts the approval numbers which are generally all that's reported. But disapproval isn't merely the inverse of approval--it's a stand-alone finding itself. The variance doesn't merely show the positivity of the electorate, it shows the active negativity. And that's a data point.

    It's not like we can't use every senator's numbers in the same way for comparison. Dunno why it puts such a bug under your rug.

  • (Show?)

    Dunno why it puts such a bug under your rug.

    Because every day BCM is sounding more and more like a Gordon Smith plant who pretends to be a progressive - but whose comments attempt to drive progressives away from Democratic candidates and causes, especially in the Senate race.

    Maybe I'm being paranoid, but we've seen this before.

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think Chuck Schumer is really sabotaging hopes for a progressive victory here in Oregon, in the Senate and in Presidential races. I have heard a number of people remark they aren't giving a dime to the DSCC because of his trying to shove Hillary down our throats, or in this case his chosen Senate candidate. It's always the establishment guy or gal, and the rest of us should just shut up. Well, to hell with the DSCC, people in Oregon are going to decide and not the party bosses! This is not good for any semblance of a united effort.

  • BCM (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari don't be such a simpleton. I've challenged your post, and instead of rebutting, you label and dismiss. Are you not capable of responding to my point on an intellectual level? The baseless charges you level tell me that you are not.

    I'll keep your support for net approval in mind next time I wish to spin a poll. BO polls 101: just start adding and subtracting until your point is made!

  • Judy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    We can talk about all the statistics we want but the fact of the matter is as long as John Frohnmayer is on the ballot it will be impossible to defeat Smith. It will look something like this:

    Smith - 48% Democrat (insert Novick or Merkley here - I prefer Novick) - 44% Frohnmayer - 8%

    Frankly, I think our money and efforts are better spent on races where we actually have a chance to win - or on trying to get Frohnmayer out of the race.

    <hr/>

connect with blueoregon