Rasmussen Reports released a poll today confirming what we already knew: Mike Ciresi and Al Franken would both be very strong challengers to Norm Coleman
Lets look at the numbers (9/6, 500 likely voters):
Coleman - 46%
Ciresi - 42%
Coleman - 46%
Franken - 41%
These numbers track pretty closely with a Survey USA poll that came out a month ago.
Coleman is in serious trouble. No incumbent wants to be at 46% this early in the cycle. The numbers are particularly bad in the Ciresi match up when you consider how low Ciresi’s name ID must be statewide.
As a side note, during his recent visit to St. Paul, Rudy Giuliani told the media that he could carry Minnesota in 2008. Well, Rasmussen begs to differ.
Clinton - 50%
Giuliani - 37%
So much for being the ‘electable’ candidate.
UPDATE: MDE is a dork. He’s got this post up saying that FRANKEN HAS HIGHEST NEGATIVES OF ANY SENATE CANDIDATE IN LATEST POLL. Lets look at the numbers:
Franken - 47% unfavorable
Coleman - 46% unfavorable
Wow…one percent! With a sample size of 500 people, that means that 5 more people viewed Franken unfavorably than did Coleman. Moreover, with a margin of error of 4.5%, Coleman’s unfavs could easily be 2-3 points higher than Franken’s. What this poll tells you is that, statistically, Franken and Coleman are equally disliked.
Loading ...
Zach:
What you failed to point mention is that Franken has the highest negatives of any candidate for the U.S. Senate at 47% statewide. Franken also had highest intensity of negatives, with 31% of saying the had a “very unfavorable” opinion of Franken.
Coleman’s approval rating is 54%, up from 51% when they polled in March. Coleman continues to hold a comfortable lead over his both his rivals for the U.S. Senate.
And which way are those numbers trending?
Coleman’s approval rating is going up.
And the other numbers?
Zack,
You’re not being completely honest in your characterization of “unfavorable,” in that you are adding the “somewhat unfavorable” and “very unfavorable” columns together, a category the poll does not have. And “very unfavorable” is a much stronger sentiment than “somehwat unfavorable”; the latter implies a negative impression of the candidate that might be changed, whereas the former implies a negative impression that will not be changed.
Franken has a 31% “very unfavorable” rating, the highest figure for any of the Senate candidates. What that tells me is 31% of the electorate will not vote for him. That’s not a great starting point.
Franken and Ciresi were both down, what, 20 points a few months ago? That is the important number, the sheer momentum that is on the side of the dfl candidates.
You guys would have been drooling if Mark Kennedy ever hit within 4 or 5% of Klobuchar at any point in the race.
Franken’s disapproval rating is going up.
“Franken’s disapproval rating is going up.”
Franken’s approval rating is going up.
wtm -
I am using the same terminology as MDE, who said “Franken has the highest negatives of any candidate for the U.S. Senate at 47% statewide.”
Its actually pretty common to lump the “somewhat” and “very” favorable and unfavorable numbers together, so there is nothing at all dishonest about Zack doing so.
That being said, the point about Franken being very much disliked by a lot of people is well taken.
Zack,
Yes, but MDE’s post also notes the 31% “very unfavorable” rating for Franken, which you conveniently exclude. So, no, both candidates are not “equally disliked” to the same degree: more Minnesotans really dislike Franken, which provides him less room to maneuver than it does Coleman.
Hat tip to the Senate 2008 guru
What’s also very notable is how Franken’s approval has shot up. In March, he stood at 39-46. Now, he’s at 46-47.
“more Minnesotans really dislike Franken,”
For now. His favorable ratings have been climbing since March.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxPnsK5CKVU
What a link! Franken talks about grassroots, bringing real change to Washington and a “people powered machine in Minnesota” - his policy guru is a California dude! Maybe that people power is about door knocking and lit dropping - but it doesn’t appear to be about hammering out issues statements with Minnesotans, by Minnesotans, for Minnesotans.
I think people are missing the point on Franken - the pool of undecided voters is shrinking, moving to ‘I hate him’ or ‘He’s not that bad’. This is why both Sean and (wince) Brodkerb are both technically correct.
Mind you, this early evaporation of undecided attitude towards a candidate was what presaged Kerry’s ignominious defeat in 2004. At the same time though, Ciresi seems to be tapping into that same pool of dislike directed at Coleman. And Ciresi does not have Franken’s large negatives.
I mean sure, Ciresi is not saying clever things on TV programs, but he seems to have a similar level of potential support, without the large negatives. And he’s lived here longer.