Bliss poll: Strickland well ahead, DeWine-Brown too close to call
Democrat Ted Strickland maintains a substantial lead over Republican Kenneth Blackwell in the Ohio governor’s race, while the U.S. Senate race between Democrat Sherrod Brown and Republican Mike DeWine is too close to call, according to a new survey released today by the University of Akron Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics.
The random telephone survey of 1,073 Ohioans was taken Aug. 20 to Sept. 29, and included a large number of undecided respondents.
It also found that 53 percent of Ohioans expressed a "great deal of confidence" that their votes would be counted fairly in the 2006 general election. However, Democrats and less-likely voters reported much lower levels of confidence than Republicans and likely voters. Sixteen percent of all respondents had "little or no confidence."
The complete report can be found online here.
"The results of this election will resonate in Ohio for many years to come," said John C. Green of the Bliss Institute, and one of the poll’s directors. "2006 looks like a good year for Ohio Democrats, but exactly how good remains to be seen."
The major findings of the survey include:
• In Ohio’s gubernatorial race, U.S. Rep. Strickland leads Secretary of State Blackwell by a large margin. Among the general public, 40.6 percent favored Strickland, 26.5 percent Blackwell, 4.2 percent other candidates, and 28.7 percent were undecided. Among likely voters, 47.4 percent favored Strickland, 33.8 percent Blackwell, 3.4 percent other candidates, and 15.5 percent were undecided.
• Ohio’s U.S. Senate race is extremely close. Among all respondents, Sen. DeWine had the support of 36.3 percent, U.S. Rep. Brown 35.0 percent, other candidates 3.2 percent, and 25.4 percent were undecided. Among likely voters, DeWine led with 41.7 percent, Brown 41.5 percent, other candidates 2.5 percent, and 14.3 percent were undecided.
• A two-thirds majority of Ohio voters — 67.9 percent — said the state was on the "wrong track" overall; 74.4 percent and 56.8 percent of all respondents said Ohio was on the wrong track in regard to the economy and moral climate, respectively.
• In the attorney general’s race, Republican Auditor Betty Montgomery leads Democratic state Sen. Marc Dann 32 percent to 22 percent in the general public, and 38 percent to 24 percent among likely voters.
• For secretary of state, Democrat Jennifer Brunner, a former judge, leads Republican Greg Hartmann, Hamilton County Clerk of Courts, 24 percent to 14 in the general public, and 27 percent to 20 percent among likely voters.
• In the auditor’s race, Democrat Barbara Sykes is ahead of Republican Mary Taylor 25 percent to 15 percent among the general public, and 29 percent to 19 percent among likely voters.
• For treasurer, Democrat Richard Cordray leads Republican Sandra O’Brien 24 percent to 21 percent among the general public, and 29 percent to 26 percent among likely voters.
• A proposal to raise the minimum wage drew the most support of any ballot initiative, with 81 percent support among the general public and 72.9 percent backing from likely voters.
• A proposal to allow slot machines in Ohio was backed by 47.6 percent of both the general public and likely voters, vs. 38.3 percent of the general public and 40.4 percent of likely voters against the measure.
• A proposed ban without exceptions on smoking in public places was supported by 42.6 percent of the general public and 47.7 percent of likely voters; a smoking ban with exceptions was backed by 51.4 percent of the general public and 52.5 percent of likely voters.
• Overall, Ohioans had a good deal of confidence in the fairness of the electoral process: 53 percent said they had a "great deal of confidence" that their ballots would be counted fairly in 2006, and another 31 percent said they had "some confidence." Just 11 percent claimed to have "little confidence" and only 5 percent expressed "no confidence at all."
• Democrats expressed much less confidence in a fair vote count, with just 39 percent reporting a "great deal of confidence" in the process and another 40 percent "some confidence." In contrast, 77 percent of Republicans expressed a "great deal of confidence" and another 19 percent "some confidence." For independents, the comparable figures were 43 percent and 32 percent, respectively. Overall, 61 percent of likely voters expressed a "great deal of confidence" in the fairness of the process, while just 49 percent of less-likely voters reported a "great deal of confidence."
Conducted by the Center for Marketing & Opinion Research LLC of Canton. the survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
5 Comments:
IF YOU HAVEN'T MADE UP YOUR MIND YET WHO TO VOTE FOR, CONSIDER THIS:
Wednesday, 3 April, 2002, 12:06 GMT 13:06 UK
US grants N Korea nuclear funds
Pyongyang threatened to pull out of the nuclear deal
The US Government has announced that it will release $95m to North Korea as part of an agreement to replace the Stalinist country's own nuclear programme, which the US suspected was being misused.
Under the 1994 Agreed Framework an international consortium is building two proliferation-proof nuclear reactors and providing fuel oil for North Korea while the reactors are being built.
In releasing the funding, President George W Bush waived the Framework's requirement that North Korea allow inspectors to ensure it has not hidden away any weapons-grade plutonium from the original reactors.
President Bush argued that the decision was "vital to the national security interests of the United States".
-snip
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1908571.stm
-THEY HAVE FAILED TO PROTECT THIS COUNTRY PRIOR TO 911 DESPITE NUMEROUS WARNINGS INCLUDING AUG 6TH PDB "OBL DETERMINED TO STRIKE" AND WARNINGS ON JULY 10TH BY GEORGE TENET +COFER BLACK (CIA) WARNING A LEVEL 10 ON A SCALE OF 1-10.
-THEY FAILED TO HELP THE PEOPLE IN NEW ORLEANS AFTER KATRINA. NEW ORLEANS STILL LOOKS LIKE A WAR ZONE.
-THEY FAILED TO HEED WARNINGS REGARDING GOING INTO IRAQ. THEY CHERRY PICKED INTEL TO FIT THERE AGENDA. EVEN BUSH'S FATHER KNEW BETTER.
-THEY FAILED TO PROTECT OUR TROOPS WITH ADEQUATE BODY ARMOR.
-THEY FAILED TO ACCOUNT FOR 9 BILLION DOLLARS MISSING IN IRAQ.
-THEY FAILED TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT OF CONGRESS ALLOWING ABRAMOFF AND OTHER TO TURN OUR PUBLIC COFFERS INTO THEIR PERSONAL BANK.
-THEY FAILED TO KEEP A SUPRPLUS LEFT BY THE DEMS AND TURNED IT INTO THE HUGEST DEFICIT IN HISTORY.
-THEY FAILED TO KEEP YOUNG PAGES SAFE, IGNORING THE WARNINGS.
- REPUBLICANS-MASSIVE FAILURE OF LEADERSHIP!
Thinking the Republicans are the party of National Security?
Bush Administration's First Memo
on al-Qaeda Declassified
January 25, 2001 Richard Clarke Memo:
"We urgently need . . . a Principals level
review on the al Qida network."
Document Central to Clarke-Rice Dispute on Bush Terrorism Policy Pre-9/11
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 147
Edited by Barbara Elias
February 10, 2005 - Original Post
Update - September 27, 2006
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm
Columbia Journalism Review: Press Must Lead Debate, Not Just Reflect It
Oct. 09, 2006
The Press Must Lead the Debate, Not Just Reflect it
Brent Cunningham
....As the mainstream press struggles to hang onto its audience while adapting to a world where it often no longer has the last word in our national debates, it is worth remembering that American journalism has never been as much about just-the-facts as many would like to believe. A wise editor once said that when people read the front page of a newspaper they think they are getting everything they need to know about a given story, but what they are actually getting is whatever the reporter was able to piece together by deadline. Incomplete, and shaped by the reporter's choices and those of her editor. Like every human endeavor, unavoidably imperfect.
It is important to remember this because part of mainstream journalism's problem today is that it tries to have it both ways. On the one hand, there is an almost reflexive desire to hide behind the mantle of the objective, just-the-facts, observer of life's rich pageant. On the other, we tend to bristle when it is suggested that we are not doing enough to set the agenda -- or lead the debate. When the New York Times chooses to front a story about potentially illegal eavesdropping by our government -- after choosing to hold it for a year -- it is leading a national debate. The Miami Herald and the St. Petersburg Times chose not to go with a story on congressman Mark Foley's inappropriate behavior toward underage pages. ABC News chose differently. We now have a national debate about the actions (and inaction) of Foley and his GOP superiors in Congress.
What is odd in all this is that the two approaches -- just-the-facts and leading the debate -- are in no way mutually exclusive. The main reason the press is reluctant to fully embrace its role as a leader of debate is that for the last forty years there has been a highly effective -- if intellectually dishonest -- effort to tar journalism as the redoubt of the dreaded "liberal elite." Anyone in the mainstream press who goes beyond stenography risks being accused (loudly and repeatedly) of bias. Look at the recent kerfuffle that erupted after Linda Greenhouse, the New York Times's veteran Supreme Court reporter, spoke "from the heart," as she put it, to a gathering at Harvard about what she sees as the U.S. government's turning away from the rule of law and allowing public policy to be hijacked by religious fundamentalism. For nearly thirty years, Greenhouse has covered the court with distinction -- and mostly without drawing the vitriol of the bias police. It is silly to think that Greenhouse has not developed a rich and nuanced understanding of many of the most contentious issues this nation has confronted in recent history, regardless of how she may feel personally about those issues.
More than ever we need the press to lead the debate. Lead it with investigative stories and analyses that are grounded in intellectually honest reporting. We need the press to trust in the authority its reporters and editors earn through just-the-facts reporting that leads to a deep, contextualized understanding of the issues. Not so long ago there was a national debate over the question of good news versus bad news in Iraq. The reporters on the ground were saying that the situation was even worse than their reporting can convey. Here at home, the White House was insisting that freedom was still on the march, and its trumpeters in the partisan media were railing against the "liberal" MSM and its alleged desire to see America fail in Iraq. Today, all but the most deluded know that the reporters on the ground were right. They are the true authorities on the situation in Iraq. Many have been there longer than the military personnel who rotate in and out. They have written about it more, thought about it more, and studied it more. Why shouldn't they be leading the debate?
http://www.cjrdaily.org/behind_the_news/the_press_must_lead_the_debate.php
Funny, I haven't seen any accusations that the Enquirer is repeating GOP talking points and press releases lately.
Funny, I haven't seen any accusations that the Enquirer is repeating GOP talking points and press releases lately.
All wRong wingnuts could use reform !
HAD ENOUGH, VOTE DEMOCRAT 2006 !
* Our online blogs currently are hosted and operated by a third party, namely, Blogger.com. You are now leaving the Cincinnati.Com website and will be linked to Blogger.com's registration page. The Blogger.com site and its associated services are not controlled by Cincinnati.Com and different terms of use and privacy policy will apply to your use of the Blogger.com site and services.
By proceeding and/or registering with Blogger.com you agree and understand that Cincinnati.Com is not responsible for the Blogger.com site you are about to access or for any service you may use while on the Blogger.com site.
<< Home