Last week on his blog Carter Wrenn, after noticing President Bush’s low approval ratings in North Carolina, had this to say about one of our latest polls…
“…none of this seems to be helping Hillary, Obama, or John Edwards. When the Democratic pollster asked, “Are you more likely to vote for the Democratic ticket if John Edwards is the nominee” – 33% of the voters said Yes. But more, 46%, said no. (It was worse for Obama and Clinton.)
In other words 52% of the people disapprove of the job President Bush is doing. But, curiously, a lot of them are less likely to vote for the Democratic ticket if the candidate is John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama. That logic seems to be odd. But maybe there is an explanation. Voters face a double negative. A Hobson’s choice. And they’re saying to themselves, President Bush hasn’t done a good job, but, let’s face it, it could be worse.”
That’s some serious spin.
In the exact same poll voters say they will vote for the Democratic presidential candidate over the Republican, 47%-42%. That’s a FAR cry from claiming North Carolinians think the Democrats could be worse than Bush.
Maybe Tar Heel voters would like a generic Democrat better than one of the top three contenders—that’s possible. But that reminds me of my earlier contention with the N&O who I think made a similar misinterpretation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
What do you expect a guy who works for Republicans as a consultant to say?
"Our party sucks, we cant govern and most voters are tired of us and think we are wrong on every issue."
I mean if he wanted to be truthful he could have said that, but I doubt many Republicans are going to be telling the truth about any polls for a long time.
Post a Comment