Rasmussen: John Lim is the strongest GOP candidate for Governor
Kari Chisholm
Rasmussen Reports has released a new poll in the Governor's race.
They tested hypothetical general election matchups between the two leading Democrats, John Kitzhaber and Bill Bradbury, and the four leading Republicans - John Lim, Chris Dudley, Allen Alley, and Bill Sizemore.
Both Bradbury and Kitzhaber defeat all four Republicans. Surprisingly, the strongest GOP candidate is John Lim, the only one of the four Republicans who has ever won an election - and ran for the U.S. Senate against Ron Wyden in 1998.
John Lim is within 2% of John Kitzhaber and 3% of Bill Bradbury. Rasmussen calls the Kitzhaber/Lim matchup a "virtual tie". Chris Dudley, who has raised the most money among the GOPers, trails Kitzhaber by 6% and Bradbury by 3%.
Allen Alley, who has been in the race the longest (and ran statewide in 2008), trails Kitzhaber by 8% and Bradbury by 6%. And, bringing up the rear is initiative racketeer Bill Sizemore, who trails Kitzhaber by 23% and Bradbury by 25%. Kitzhaber, of course, defeated Sizemore in 1998.
Here's the breakdown:
| Bradbury | Kitzhaber | |
| Lim | 38-35 | 40-38 |
| Dudley | 39-36 | 42-36 |
| Alley | 41-35 | 42-34 |
| Sizemore | 48-23 | 48-25 |
Rasmussen did not report on primary matchups, but did report favorability ratings - but emphasized the "very" favorable and "very" unfavorable numbers:
Twenty-six percent (26%) of Oregon voters have a very favorable opinion of Kitzhaber, while 27% view him very unfavorably.For Bradbury, very favorables total 20% and very unfavorables 13%.
Lim is viewed very favorably by six percent (6%) and very unfavorably by nine percent (9%).
Nine percent (9%) have a very favorable view of Dudley, and four percent (4%) regard him very unfavorably.
Sizemore again is a different ballgame. While six percent (6%) view him very favorably, a sizable 44% have a very unfavorable opinion of him.
At this point in a campaign, Rasmussen Reports considers the number of people with strong opinions more significant than the total favorable/unfavorable numbers.
Read more here. Discuss.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
1:00 p.m.
Feb 19, '10
Full disclosure: My firm built John Kitzhaber's campaign website, but I speak only for myself.
Feb 19, '10
What? Really?
1:32 p.m.
Feb 19, '10
With the exception of Sizemore, I doubt that more than 1/3 of the voters actually know who any of the Republicans are. Even though Alley and Lim have run before they are just not known by the average voter.
Of course Rasmussen polls have been shown to way undercount younger voters and cell phone users so most of this is not terribly useable information.
1:44 p.m.
Feb 19, '10
To properly swallow Rasmussen poll results, it is suggested it recommended that one consume a min. of 1/3 your body weight in sodium chloride.
1:47 p.m.
Feb 19, '10
With one obvious exception, these numbers look pretty close to a generic Democrat versus Republican match-up with a fairly small individual differential. The one outlier--Sizemore--seems to put to rest the old maxim "any publicity is good publicity."
This also suggests that yesterday's numbers for Ron Wyden versus Jim Huffman may be better than they initially seemed, although if the stronger Republican showing overall compared to recent elections holds true, this could still be a good year for a number of GOP upsets.
Feb 19, '10
[Offensive crap deleted. -editor.]
Feb 19, '10
I agree with Jack (that keeps happening, dammit!) that this poll suggests that the Wyden-Huffman poll speaks more loudly about Wyden's strength than his weakness. The real opportunity - maybe a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity - for Republicans is the open gov's race in a bad Democratic year. With a little luck, this Huffman guy will get into the Senate race and Wyden will spend his bazillions, helping Bradbury/Kitzhaber over the finish line. We are far better off with Wyden spending his dough freely this cycle than we are with another boring non-challenge from an Al King type.
Feb 19, '10
Wow - talk about anemic numbers for a former two term governor. As Democrats, we need to be very worried about the lack of fire in Kitzhaber's belly. No one ever accused him of being the hardest working man in Salem last time around and those close to his previous campaigns will tell you he is not an ideal candidate in terms of work ethic, fundraising, staying on message, etc.
This is not going to be the kind of year we can just automatically assume D's will stay home and we will win the Independents. Personally, I wish we had better choices.
Feb 19, '10
Speaking as a post-partisan, young Democrat , I really can see myself voting for John Lim. Unlike the other ditto-head GOPers, Lim seems genuinely interested in creating a better business environment and solving other difficult issues.
Although Lim was careless enough to misspell his own name on his bumper stickers.. But on the other hand, Lim doesn't have a ridiculous mustache like either Kitzhaber of Alley.
Feb 19, '10
Posted by: lestatdelc | Feb 19, 2010 1:44:06 PM----
lol!
my sentiments exactly!
which of your neighbors can you imagine voting as these polls suggest?
Feb 19, '10
[Off-topic comment removed. -editor.]
Feb 19, '10
[Response to off-topic comment removed. -editor.]
11:18 p.m.
Feb 19, '10
Jack R, let's not forget the special Congressional race in NY23 where the Tea Partier derailed the Republican -- and the Dem won for the first time in like 3000 years. MA had a bad Dem candidate and 40% turnout. all the Dems need are one like health care (esp if they pass some form of public option) and they'll hold serve, at the least. on top of everything else, more Rs are quitting Congress than Ds. it's way too early to start predicting doom -- especially with David Plouffe back running the campaign.
1:13 a.m.
Feb 20, '10
You're right, t.a., but don't forget that NY special election involved a moderate candidate selected by the Republican party (not in a primary) who then was challenged by a third party candidate on the right. The Republican nominee, running third in the polls, actually dropped out and endorsed the Democrat.
It's hard to imagine that scenario playing out in Oregon. But I agree with what I take is your broader point, i.e., that if Republican primary voters were foolish enough to nominate Bill Sizemore, we would doubtless lose again no matter how good a Republican year 2010 turns out to be.
But Scott Brown in Massachusetts is an example of a moderate Republican who picked issues that allowed him to appeal to conservatives without alienating independents and anti-incumbent centrists so if present national trends apply in Oregon--a big if--there could be a opportunity opening for Republicans in statewide races this year.
Feb 20, '10
"that if Republican primary voters were foolish enough to nominate Bill Sizemore, we would doubtless lose again no matter how good a Republican year 2010 turns out to be.
But Scott Brown in Massachusetts is an example of a moderate Republican who picked issues that allowed him to appeal to conservatives without alienating independents and anti-incumbent centrists so if present national trends apply in Oregon--a big if--there could be a opportunity opening for Republicans in statewide races this year."
Finally, some intelligent discussion. A BIG IF is right. And what was that I read about young voter turnout operations in Jan. in Oregon creating a larger young voter turnout in Oregon than Mass.?
Does Rasmussen only poll people with land line phones? Cell phone only households don't vote?
Yes, candidate quality matters. Brown is filling an unexpired term----and as much as some Republicans don't want to admit it, Brown got in at least partly the way Gordon Smith got in---appearing moderate and running a very well organized campaign. From what I have read and heard, Coakley's campaign rivaled Bruggere's 1996 campaign in sheer incompetence and stupidity.
Yes, that would be a good way to start an argument in these parts, I admit: compare and contrast the good and bad points of the Coakley and Bruggere campaigns and ask what can be learned from them.
It has long been my contention that Vic Atiyeh was the last Republican Gov. of the 20th century because there was no equivalent after him.
Yes, Dave and Norma were of equal quality, but did they run as themselves or as the creation of their campaign consultants? I did not put a bumper sticker on my car for a long time the year Dave ran against Barbara---said there were 2 intelligent candidates and people had an excellent choice.
Then Dave ran that brainless commercial of the brick going through the plate glass window, and I had Barbara Roberts for Gov. on my car within 24 hours.
People I knew here in Salem said they would have voted for the woman they knew for many years as St. Rep. and Sec. of State but the woman they had known all these years was not the Norma running for Gov.
(BTW, Ron Wyden in Jan.1996 escaped that problem by saying no to his consultants and running that 100% positive campaign--due at least in part to those of us who talked to the Wyden out of state staffers at the campaign and said "this is Oregon---people will vote for the person they have known for years, but reserve the right to say things like "if Ron turns into someone else, I don't have to vote for him".
How has yelling RINO worked for Oregon Republicans?
Perhaps it is time to consider the Frank Morse model.
No, I don't agree with everything that the Senator from District 8 has done. But I admire him greatly. No better recent example than the annual sessions bill. If the GOP candidates for Gov. disagree with that bill and the bipartisan support it got, exactly what in Sen. Morse's speech would they disagree with? Or is that asking for thoughtful and intelligent answers which they don't want to give?
There are many questions which need to be answered on annual sessions, and hopefully there will be an intelligent debate.
Is the E Board really representative, or should we have the Ways and Means process at work in both odd and even years?
Is it better to have people in the legislature who also work in regular jobs, or do we only want people who can arrange their lives so that if a legislative sesssion in the odd numbered year stretched into August (as they have a few times) that is OK?
Sen. Morse gave one of the more intelligent speeches on the annual sessions bill. There were several other very intelligent speeches as well.
Some Republicans give the impression that Republicans like Morse and Atiyeh (thoughtful, not ideologues, able to discuss issues intelligently without slogans, background in running a business with their family name on it, manners sometimes described as "gentlemen of the old school") aren't "real" Republicans. Those are the ones who speak at TEA Party events, and like someone said on a political show last night "it is OK in some districts to be pro-choice on abortion and not oppose gay marriage, but you sure better never mention the possibility of raising taxes!".
Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway has suggested that major candidates be given the same sort of scrutiny that companies like hers use in the hiring process (in her company, that includes application, interview, skill testing, spending half a day with an applicant to see if they fit into the company and what they do).
So, are Republicans willing to subject themselves to an independent standard like that, or do they still believe that statements of ideology and "we're not Democrats" will win over independent voters (the folks who actually decide elections?
There are areas where I agree with Bradbury's vision (whether or not I think he has specified a plan to carry it out) and recently, in a debate on a current issue, I have said "....and I like how Kitzhaber phrased it when he said..".
But the Republicans? What has there been to react to?
I am not impressed with horserace polls when we have heard so few specifics from candidates, esp. GOP.
I believe the most telling poll question is one we seldom hear about---ranking candidates on "cares about people like me, understands my problems". My guess is that Sizemore (who has said parents vocal about stable school funding are "just dupes of the teachers union") would score a 0 or 1, but we have no idea where the others stand because we have so little information on their vision for the future and plans to carry it out.
Suppose Lim wins the primary and polls next Sept. show him 20 points behind. Does that mean Rasmussen was wrong?
Feb 20, '10
[Response to off-topic comment removed. -editor.]
4:53 p.m.
Feb 20, '10
I know John Lim from my days in the secret Republican group, Trumpeters (from which I resigned when I registered as a Democrat). As a person, he's a nice man. However, he's typical of the South Korean close-to-evangelical moralistic culture (e.g., fanatically opposed to state-sponsored gambling of any kind on moralistic grounds).
I wouldn't vote for Lim if he were the only person on the ballot. We don't need an evangelical doing whatever it is that a governor does.
By the way, what does an Oregon governor do? I havn't seen much leadership from any governor in the past 20 years.
Feb 24, '10