So Kasich’s astroturfing blogger, Third Base Politics, is trumpeting the latest Rasmussen poll showing Kasich ahead by nine points.  The idiot actually thinks its noteworthy that 70 some Kasich supporters tweeted about it.  (That’s remarkable, how?)

Yes, Rasmussen, the favorite pollster of the GOP (since everyone realized that John Zogby was simply unreliable) says Kasich is up nine points, but there are fault lines that show Kasich’s support is incredibly soft:

1) Strickland’s favorability ratings are just fine and exceed Kasich.  So, it means that Ohioans like Strickland personally.

2) Kasich has no name recognition.  He’s benefiting more as an anti-Strickland vote than a pro-Kasich vote.  This, of course, is by the Kasich’s campaign design because they realize that the earlier folks learn about Kasich’s platform the quicker he’ll lose that soft support.

3) Democrats aren’t engaged in the race yet.  Strickland gets lukewarm support from Democratic primary voters.  With an actual Senate primary (in which Strickland is backing one of the candidates) pending, it’s not surprised that Democrats aren’t yet engaged in supporting Strickland, who has no primary challenger and isn’t on the ballot for eleven months.

4) African-American voters aren’t engaged.  Same as above.  Furthermore, Rasmussen has been notorious for underreporting Strickland’s support in the African-American communities.  I recall during 2005-2006 that conservative bloggers cited similar numbers as evidence of how Ken Blackwell was going to mop the floor with Strickland.  It didn’t happen.  Exit polls and data from African-American majority precincts showed no evidence of Strickland underperforming.

5) Strickland still has decent approval ratings.  Nearly 50% of Ohioans still approve of the job Strickland is doing.  26% only “somewhat disapprove.  That last class of voters may being leaning Kasich today, but are still for the taking by Strickland.  Strickland’s job approval rating actually exceeds the President’s.

Here’s the funniest thing TBP said:

Despite the constant negativity and attacks coming from the Ohio Dems, Kasich only became stronger among Republicans and Independents.

What constant attacks?  I’ve seen very little from the Ohio Democratic Party attacking Kasich.  Sure, they’ve issued press releases attacking Kasich, but not a single one of them seems to have been picked up by any media outlet.  It’s hard for the ODP’s attacks to affect the polling if the only people who hear them are visitors to the ODP’s website.  Therefore, Kasick’s resiliency is hardly remarkable as it is expected.  

Regardless, the wrong attack is being used.  The guilty by association reference to Lehman Brothers just isn’t going to move Democrats and independents back into the Strickland campaign.  However, mentioning Kasich rubbing elbows with Glenn Beck (“Obama is a racist”) at Fox News will.

Mentioning that the only positions Kasich has publicly announced calls for the end of public education and the most radical tax giveaway to the richest Ohioans will.

Time and time again, when Kasich has been asked what his plan is to solve Ohio’s problems, he’s said:

“These specifics will be answered when I’m ready to answer them, not when the questions are asked.”

Columbus Dispatch, 3/29/09

When that hits a paid TV ad, Kasich’s numbers will collapse.  Because leadership means being able to answer the call when asked.

 
  • Cthenson

    I respect your opinions, and like Ronald Reagan said,” The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.”

    When people see that John's role at Lehman was indeed minimal, they will realize that the line of attack holds no clout at all.

    Also, remember, John's show at Fox ended long before Beck made the switch from HNN.

    Also, it was not until months after this point in 2006 that Ted released the details of his turnaround Ohio plan.

    I believe that when people hear John's record of independent leadership, humanitarian action, and humble upbringings, the people of this state will line up behind the next Governor.

    Enjoy the reads by the way, while I disagree, it is written much better than the crap pushed by the guy at BSB..haha

  • modernesquire

    The difference between Kasich's campaign and Strickland's is that at this point Strickland's campaign was only a few months old. Kasich has been running for Governor for over a year ALREADY.

    Second, Strickland never promised anything that would affect around 40% of the state's revenues. The fact that Kasich cannot give a simple answer of what he will either cut, or what taxes he will raise to pay for his income tax repeal reveals a guy that is promoting an ideological platform that has not thought through the obvious consequences.

    John Kasich still regularly appears on Fox News, but thanks for agreeing with me that any tie to Glenn Beck is a political liability for Kasich.

  • Cthenson

    Hmm, John Kasich filed in May 2009, far less than the “over a year” that you claim. Do you include time that John was exploring a possible run? As a former Strickland staffer like yourself would know, Ted was mulling a bid as early as 2004. ( http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_… )

    As late as october 2006 the Turnaround Ohio plan was still be criticized for lacking specifics.

  • modernesquire

    Don't talk to me like I'm a moron. Kasich has been “exploring” running for Governor since Strickland was sworn in. You can't honestly believe that he was really sitting on the fence. That's the first I've heard of Strickland considering in 2004. I do know that at the time he strongly indicated that he was considering a Senate bid, and that he had long been rumored as a Senate candidate. Strickland only announced any intention to run for Governor after the apparent collapse of the Coleman gubernatorial campaign.

    Regardless, I don't understand how you can claim Kasich is a superior candidate to Strickland, and yet, should be excused for having the same “faults.”

    Again, Strickland didn't propose something that would eliminate 40% of the State's revenues. Given such a radical proposed change, Kasich doesn't get a pass on explaining how he'd pay for it while attacking Strickland for the State's budget woes. It's hypocrisy.

  • Kasich has been exploring running for Governor long before that.

    Back in July of 2005 “Kasich … told supporters he would run only if the field is partially cleared for him, enough campaign money is available and the party commits to ending pay-to-play politics.”

  • anastasjoy

    Actually, unless your definition of “collapse” is different from mine, Coleman's campaign was alive and roaring when Strickland was fully committed and already campaigning heavily. I saw them together at a forum in Cleveland in November or December 2005, when both were declared candidates, running hard. It was about a month after that, I think, that Coleman withdrew. It also seems to me that when I went to a Young Dems event for Coleman in September of that year, Strickland was also already campaigning and making appearances up here.

    But you are right: I've been hearing people assume Kasich would be Strickland opponent for a couple of years now. And I think Kasich will have a big problem, now that's he's backed off on his proposal to eliminate state income taxes in order (he said) to end the recession, saying that he can't do it until after the recession has lifted (Talk about a Catch-22!). Strickland would have shredded him simply by saying, “I would like to hear Mr. Kasich tell us which 40% of state services he would cut.” Without it, Kasich is left with nothing but “Eliminate the estate tax,” which I doubt is going to have widespread resonance with regular Ohio voters who are asking “Where's my damned job?,” not “Why do I have to pay taxes on my $25 million dollar estate?

    We'll have to see what else Kasich can come up with once this campaign is on anyone's radar.

  • anastasjoy

    Fill me in, Joseph ? exactly where and when did the Ohio GOP commit to ending “pay to play” politics. I would love to see that!

  • anastasjoy

    Actually, unless your definition of “collapse” is different from mine, Coleman's campaign was alive and roaring when Strickland was fully committed and already campaigning heavily. I saw them together at a forum in Cleveland in November or December 2005, when both were declared candidates, running hard. It was about a month after that, I think, that Coleman withdrew. It also seems to me that when I went to a Young Dems event for Coleman in September of that year, Strickland was also already campaigning and making appearances up here.

    But you are right: I've been hearing people assume Kasich would be Strickland opponent for a couple of years now. And I think Kasich will have a big problem, now that's he's backed off on his proposal to eliminate state income taxes in order (he said) to end the recession, saying that he can't do it until after the recession has lifted (Talk about a Catch-22!). Strickland would have shredded him simply by saying, “I would like to hear Mr. Kasich tell us which 40% of state services he would cut.” Without it, Kasich is left with nothing but “Eliminate the estate tax,” which I doubt is going to have widespread resonance with regular Ohio voters who are asking “Where's my damned job?,” not “Why do I have to pay taxes on my $25 million dollar estate?

    We'll have to see what else Kasich can come up with once this campaign is on anyone's radar.

  • anastasjoy

    Fill me in, Joseph ? exactly where and when did the Ohio GOP commit to ending “pay to play” politics. I would love to see that!

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:


Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!