Wednesday, May 11, 2005

Taft's 19% - Carty & Noe

Tough review for the Governor: 19% approval - 74% disapproval - 600 person sample. Survey USA. As you may know, Taft's "go-to-guy" apparently was becoming Carty's go-to-guy, participating in at least one meeting and later fielding Finkbeiner softballs on the air. I think Carty should keep Tom Noe (R) at his meetings and on his final shows. Great move. (He must be losing it.)

9 Comments:

Anonymous Sepp said...

Taft at 19%? Talk about a skewed poll! My best estimate had our bumbling Govornor topping out at about 6%. As for Carty losing it...who's to say he ever had it in the first place? LOL!
-Sepp

12:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Taft should be at 0.00009% since we went from a $600 million surplus in 1999 and then a year later we end up with $300 million deficit. I cannot fathom the mentality of this state for giving this clown a second term as our governor.

10:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I voted against Taft twice. In all fairness though we have to remember the Bush administration has reduced funding for Medicaid among other items and increased unfunded mandates. States must pick up the slack and, in Ohio, Taft is bound by a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Add to that the horrible loss of jobs. Every Democrat must be thrilled this didn't happen on his/her watch.

9:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Taft is terrible. Ford's approval is at 26% (even before OI left), which is almost as bad.

3:12 PM  
Blogger Frank said...

26% for Ford, I dont think so.

You must be using that baloney poll that look liked something that might get cooked up by the Kest gang in the Treasurer's office.

It was a poll done two months ago - BY MAIL! - which is about as unreliable as you can get - except maybe as unreliable as web polls.

Anyone who gives credibility to a poll done by mail or web is being snookered - a key trick used by Carty & the Kest gang.

4:14 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

How did a Republican presidential candidate win Ohio when our "R" governor is dead last out of 50 states in approval ratings?

I'm no fan of Taft, but the sample was a bit smaller than I'd like to see. Still, even doubling the margin or error, his approval is less than 40%. The trend of that survey seems to be that larger states have lower approval ratings for their Govs. Is this media bias, or perhaps that the larger states feel the drain of underfunded mandates like Medicaid sooner than smaller ones? Taft recently called Medicaid, the "Monster in the middle of the road."
http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/2005/0303/p01s01-uspo.htm

R's and D's should agree that Medicaid is a looming financial disaster as actual and proposed federal funding (under 'W 04')shrinks while enrollment expands. States will be forced to cut this program or 'cook the books' to make budget.

Maybe we do need Carty back in office so he can get some help from his buds at Kest et al on how to do some 'creative' book keeping to 'balance' the budget. Maybe Noe could return some of his 'profits' to the state to help grandma get another week or two of care and meds while in her nursing home?

11:41 PM  
Anonymous Sepp said...

Frank, I doubt that 26% number is true either. It's probably closer to 12%. Those numbers mean nothing since the voter turnout will probably be a dismal 30%.
-Sepp

1:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Frank:
I'm sure that Jack Ford's approval ratings are less than 26%. With many taxpayers upset with Ford about his handling of the Edison Steam Plant issue, and with the departure of O-I, Ford really can't seem to win anyone over.
As I've said in an earlier post, Ludeman is looking very good in this election. With Jack Ford having an "opposite Midas Touch" (i.e. everything he touches falls apart), and with the possiblity of "Condo" Carty Finkbeiner running (without the aid of his recently departed friend and ally, Edwin Bergsmark)and taking votes away from Jack Ford, Ludeman has everything to gain.

2:18 PM  
Anonymous Sepp said...

My posting from this morning (5-15-05) was removed. Why? It was not slanderous, insulting, degrading, offensive or, laced with any profane language. It was honest and reflects what is being said on the streets by a majority of people I've come across. If you only want to allow posts that offer no alternative veiwpoint just say so. They have a word for that.

9:50 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home