WI_DEM
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-08-10 08:54 AM
Original message |
(R)asmussen Poll: CA GOV Whitman: 48% Brown: 45% |
|
Edited on Wed Sep-08-10 08:55 AM by WI_DEM
Why would Meg Whitman be +15 favorability?????--I think this poll is BS.
Rasmussen 9/6/10; 750 likely voters, 4% margin of error Mode: Automated phone (Rasmussen release)
California
2010 Governor 48% Whitman (R), 45% Brown (D) (chart)
Favorable / Unfavorable Meg Whitman: 55 / 40 Jerry Brown: 45 / 51
|
still_one
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-08-10 09:01 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Because Brown is controversial in California, people don't know whitman |
|
Edited on Wed Sep-08-10 09:02 AM by still_one
Though the MSM likes to classify California as a liberal state, it is actually more of an independent one
However, the poll is actually not too bad for us, and since Brown just started his advertising, things could change rapidly as news comes out about whitman
|
impik
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-08-10 09:16 AM
Response to Original message |
2. Not bad, not bad. We're just starting. One event with Obama can turn it around |
saltpoint
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-08-10 09:18 AM
Response to Original message |
3. Buy-it-now Meg has dumped a pile of cash into her |
|
campaign already and is only up 3 points in Raz.
Probably not a real encouraging outcome for Meg.
Go, Jerry.
|
KingFlorez
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-08-10 09:36 AM
Response to Original message |
4. As long as Brown this close and within the margin of error, it's good |
|
It means he still has room to work. I'm confident that he can win this.
|
Kind of Blue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-08-10 09:52 AM
Response to Original message |
5. I don't think this poll is bad, given that her |
|
political ads have aired 400,000 times - no kidding. He just got rolling airing his first yesterday, so we'll see. Thanks for posting.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 03rd 2024, 05:04 PM
Response to Original message |