According to Politico’s Morning Consult, South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard is currently the fifth most popular governor in the nation, based on collected polling data.
That’s down slightly from his previous #1 status, but still, in these 50 states it’s not too shabby.
There has to be a reason why he ranks so high and these are among the most likely, IMHO.
1) The poll was given to people from other states who have no idea who he is or knowledge of his left leaning, progressive politics.
2) The poll was given to Democrats in SD who know exactly who he is and LOVE his left leaning, progressive politics.
3) The poll was given only to SD citizens under the age of 25 knowing that they had no clue about politics, but were anxious to participate in the poll hoping for their 15 minutes of fame.
In short, Daugaard may be the 5th most popular governor, but he certainly ranks much lower in terms of being a conservative and protecting the God given freedoms which South Dakotans deserve.
I don’t know about numbers 2 and 3, but I’m pretty sure they poll residents of the states, so number 1 on your list is probably not accurate.
I’m not sure how many 25 year olds would think they were going to be famous for taking a poll, so I don’t know that this holds water either.
The only one that may have some bearing is number 2, but this is not given in the blog post or on the underlying article that I could see.
Given all that, I am not as impressed with Daugaard as I was; he has sold a lot of conservative ideals down the river for whatever reason. I do hope we get a stronger conservative next time down the road, but it could always be worse-look at the bullet we dodged nationally (metaphorically speaking for those of you liberals who find the phrase threatening or offensive) with Hillary’s loss last November.
Don’t know whose poll this is, but Matt Mead is Governor of Wyoming, not Montana.
Yeah, I thought Montana had a Dem governor, and the name Mead didn’t ring a bell. That doesn’t say much for the accuracy.
Thomas, I understand some people don’t like to Governor, but these polls are consistent with every poll that comes out in this state regarding the Governor and it is consistent with election results. The Governor has a high approval rating in this state. Period. The numbers don’t lie.
Come on, he won by the biggest margin in state history. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/12/16/south-dakota-gov-daugaard-won-by-the-biggest-margin-in-state-history/?utm_term=.71fb75e5e1a9
…..and then passed 2 tax increases and veto’d constitutional carry and the veto’d the transgender bill…
Where are the conservative policies in the second term?
… he won by the biggest margin in state history.
Against who? How long ago? He has not kept with the conservative ideals of South Dakota since his most recent election. I’m disappointed.
So in other words, given Trump’s lack of popularity, Trump should probably resign, huh? Especially, when you consider, that soon we will walk into the Labor Day break without a single piece of major legislation having been passed by the Republican controlled government in Washington….
EC, besides being off topic, you are exaggerating Trump’s unpopularity. The 36% poll was a joke, but since they liked the numbers, CNN couldn’t help but crow about it. If you look at the internals, you understand why it was a poll built to embarrass the President. Rassumusen has him at about 43 or 46%. This is pretty close to his margin from last November. Pretty much most people who voted for him approve of him. The cry-baby whiners who cannot accept that he is President do not approve of him.
Funny you should mention Rasmussen polling, because what I have noticed over the years is that if you take a Rasmussen poll and subtract six points from a conservative candidate, or view point, that you find the truth.
So a Rasmussen poll at 43 or 46% is actually 37 to 40% or at parity with the CNN poll you mentioned.
I do, however, believe that Trump will always be more popular than Nixon. Because the Trump voter has always been there, even before Trump showed up. There has always been that chunk of voters who are anti-Washington and anti-establishment, and with the further collapse of the middle class, I am afraid that group will only further solidify or grow.
The real question is how much longer will Republican leaders in this country allow Trump to ruin this country with no major conservative legislative accomplishments to show for, before they are willing to alienate a part of the conservative base, who really love Trump, in order to save America from this Russian stool pigeon that is currently occupying the Oval Office?
keep drinking the Koolaid. The reason so many establishment people are having problems is because Trump is attempting to take away from their power. After a year of investigation, there is nothing to the “Russian” affair.
Duggersd,
I do not know what your age is but will say this again. Many of us grew up and lived during the Cold War. Some of us including myself were in branches of the military and we trained to go to war with Russia if called upon. It is very disturbing to see Americans unfazed by what has been happening. They trust a former KGB agent who is a master at manipulation and deception over our own intelligence services? Our President with no experience meeting alone with Putin with no safeguards or accountability in place? Our Republican Senators and Representatives would of been all over this 20 years ago no matter what political Party that President belonged to.
Remember! Candidate Trump blasted Senator John McCain for being captured in Vietnam. Senator McCain who was tortured at the Hanoi Hilton for what 5 1/2 years there and still has issues in range of movement in his arms and shoulders. Can you imagine the daily pain he has to deal with that lingers from those days being tortured? Where was Trump during Vietnam?
daggersd says, “After a year of investigation, there is nothing to the “Russian” affair.”
OK. What part of that Trump Tower meeting with the Russians and lying about it for six months did you miss? Three top campaign officials meet with Russian “government” representatives to get what they described as dirt on Clinton and all three somehow forgot the event. The Administration denied it all along. Oh, and then Trump fires the FBI Director to “relieve the pressure” from the investigation. Nothing to see here. Sure. Got it. No doubt “Fake News”.
Talk about Koolaid drinkers.
Jimmy for the sake of our country I really hope we all learn from this going forward.
JJ, that “meeting” lasted what, 20 minutes? They had nothing to offer. And it was not even “Russian” officials. You Never Trumpers are grasping at straws. BTW, as I understand lawyers who have spoken on this, even if Trump did “collude” there is no law against it. We have already seen a SOS taking bribes and giving away national interests, but nobody seems to care about that.
Miranda, I grew up in the Cold War. President Reagan said “trust, but verify”. Like it or not, Putin is the leader of Russia. Last I checked, Russia is a major country and a major power. Trump has to deal with the guy. I suspect you give Trump too little credit. I see him as a large improvement over what we have just had.
With no help from the demoncrats because they want to push down the gas pedal on the car they have steered, with Obummer’s help, right towards a cliff. Blame the demoncrats for giving the country the debacle that is ObummerCare.
Has the King maker told us who is going to be the next Governor ? With popularity numbers like this, you’d think endorsements would carry more merit. Think State house and senate. Think county leadership. He seems to struggle within the party vs the whole. That means he lacks conservative conviction. Which, in a state like South Dakota, is disappointing.
It all fits the bill of the new “grand ol party”. I mean how are there only 4 senators against this new health care bill, which is 95% Obamacare, and one of them is the most liberal republican in the Senate, Susan Collins. How can we get legislation through when 90 percent of the so called republicans vote to the left. There are no longer principed conservatives representing us in Washington. As far as this polling data goes, it cannot be trusted. The poll came from the Morning Consult which is headed by former Washington Post journalists.
The reality is that no one in Washington wants healthcare reform. It’s all about the money in Medicaid expansion and special interest groups like AHA. Even the Republicans can’t say no to all that free money. 90% of ObamaCare has nothing to do with healthcare but it expanded government. Even the Republicans…state & national…support big government. Only objective was to get elected…..our politicians let us down big time! At least the liberals are honest about their objectives.
Daugaard is, and will remain, popular because he is a moderate. Voters are so sick of elected officials that consistently push hard to the left or right, rather than taking each issue at face value and making common sense decisions.
Great job Governor… Congratulations!
Common sense is more often a hard-right than hard-left decision. Conservatism looks at things logically while Liberalism looks at things with a supposed compassionate mindset. The fact is, if the whole country falls apart because we are giving everything away for free, then where will those who need help go? Liberals never think of that.
Polls like this (of course) reflect a partisan bias. In a state where Republicans have an overwhelming numbers advantage, it’s much easier for a governor to have a higher approval rating than a governor from a state where the opposition party is stronger.. Also, Daugaard’s election opponents were pretty much ciphers with no chance at all. This meant no outside money and certainly no negative ad saturation bombing. Had Dauguaard faced a negative ad campaign in the last election, it would probably have had some effect: maybe a 5% approval drop, enough to put him in the center of the pack rather than near the top.
Art makes good points. I would counter as follows:
Scott Heidepriem was a well-funded, strong Democratic candidate with a Sioux Falls base. There haven’t been a lot of better candidates for the Dem’s in recent history. It’s easy after an election to say that someone is a bad candidate, but at the time the race began, there were a lot of people who thought Scott could win. Susan Wismer ran a poor campaign and hand no money, but she was was a serious candidate and part of the reason she didn’t get traction was Daugaard’s popularity and fundraising advantage.
Had those races been closer, and there had been money sprent on a negative ad run, I agree his approval rating would have decreased some even past the election. 5 points seems reasonable (which still keeps him around the top ten).
You will note that his disapproval is higher than some of the people on that list (25% vs. teens), and I would suspect it is higher because the Governor has lost some people in his base in the second term, as you can see in the comments. BUT – it doesn’t change the fact that most the people that vote in South Dakota approve of how the Governor is doing by a WIDE margin. Most the people in this state are center-right voters and the Governor is a center-right governor.
EC,
1) Your statement about Rasmussen is devoid of the facts. As the following shows, Rasumussen had the most accurate pre-election poll on the Presidential race. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html
2) I hear people all the time say: “This poll is bull because they work for Democrats, or Republicans, or the NYT or Fox News, etc.” They are 100% of the time speaking crap. Every major pollster makes their money by selling their services to business doing market research. They do political polls to get exposure and have an interest in being accurate and unbiased.
3) Polling methodologies are pretty standard. All the major pollsters adhere to the same standard. Republican pollsters, Democrat pollsters, Fox, or CNN. All of them. The reason they have different results is they have made different assumptions with regard to turn-out of particular sub-groups. Anybody who knows how to look at a poll will drill down and look at their assumptions to discern the real information. Only the idiots do things like look at their name and subtract 6 points. Its not only lazy but its stupid.
I will tell you what is “lazy” and “stupid,” that’s continuing to defend Trump. You Republicans for the most part are far better than Trump and you know it, but your corporate mentality unfortunately limits you and your true potential.
As far as your cite is concern, it shows quite a few polls to be accurate in that race.
Rasmussen is bound to get one right from time to time. Plus, behind the scenes, I do not think that many good conservatives wanted Trump to win any more than liberals in the last presidential race, which would give Rasmussen further encouragement to weaken Trump’s numbers. Only recently has Rasmussen become strong on Trump, and that’s because conservatives own Trump and they fall if Trump falls.
Oh, and in terms of “standards,” well, they may all maintain the same “standards,” but not necessarily the same wording or questions. We all know you can influence the outcome of a poll, if you want too, by how you ask the questions. Often Rasmussen is at odds with the other pollsters, except in 2016 they feared Trump as much as liberals. Now it is just a question of when Rasmussen and other conservative groups are going to jump ship and end what they and many feared in 2016…..
EC,
For a smart guy, you sure can say ignorant things. Rasmussen had one bad cycle in the last 10- 2008. The reason he underestimated turnout in the black and other demographics groups. Otherwise, he has consistently been at the top with IBD, PPP, NBC/WSJ et. al.
Everyone of the top 10 polling firms (including PPP, a firm which only does political polls for Dems) are credible and don’t manipulate to get particular results. When they are off, their assumptions or questions are missing something but it wasn’t because they are manipulating anything. They are just end up wrong in their assumptions.
The people who disregard by results because of who the pollster are often emotionally unable to deal with results they (Republican or Democrat) or hoping reality is different, so they make up stupid reasons to disregard.
Its funny that you would mention PPP. Because I always take their results with a grain of salt, too, because as you said, they are a Democratic pollster.
If you look at the polling results for Trump’s approval ratings, since January, you cannot help but notice that Rasmussen, and Fox too, stand out. And I think I know why, because it is their job to save Trump in hopes of enacting the Republican agenda, but after this health care debacle, I would not be surprised if Rasmussen and Fox move more to the center so as to help remove Trump and save the Republican Party and what is left of the conservative agenda.
As far as your discussion concerning assumptions and manipulation. Well, let me just say there are two major aspects with any poll and one of them is subjective, while the other is objective. The objective part is the raw numbers, which don’t lie, while the subjective part is instituted right from the start in how the questions are written for a given poll. And thus, just as PPP has a duty, I will allege, so does Rasmussen and Fox, too….
My comments are not ignorance, rather they are the understanding and observance of an obvious trend, when it comes to Rasmussen polling. That’s why I called Trump’s election long before most did, and if you don’t believe me, then just ask many of my associates who thought I was naive about that one too. Back in 2016, it was the elasticity of Trumps support, which told me that Trump’s voters were more committed to him than Clinton supporters were to her. Plus, Clinton never seemed to really gain from Trump’s mishaps, which further fueled my belief that Trump would win in 2016 – watch the trends, when relative to other constants, and what some will try to dismiss as “ignorance” will in time be proven to be right…
EC,
You realize you are proving you don’t understand polling a single iota.
Raw numbers are meaningless. For example, if the demographic white women under the age of 30 are 10% of the respondents in the poll, 25% of the populace, and historically 30% of actual voters, this demographic may be given 3x weight in computing the poll.
However, because Hillary was a woman, some pollsters might weight this demographic @ 3.2x because of higher than normal turn-out. If this pollster is right regarding extra turn-out, this pollster will be more accurate than those who don’t give it extra weight.
The above is what is going on when numbers are different. People who understand polls and statistics can see this when they look at cross-tabs and analyze the different global results of different polls. People who are lazy and ignorant just dismiss polls from PPP or Rasmussen.
Again, you say they are observation of a trend. Numbers guru Nate Silver (and Liberal) wrote an article which showed Rasmussen is among the most accurate day-in-day out across a broad swath of polls and races except for 2008.
You really should become more informed by facts.
Troy, That’s ok, most of the stuff EC posts proves he doesn’t know iota 🙂
You wish….. 😉
Nate Silver also admitted on Colbert, that he got Trump wrong in the Spring of 2016, because he said he had become a pundit and not a pollster.
I remember when Zogby was big, too. Are they still in business today? And if they are, there name would probably be confused as the ninth attendee at Don Jr.’s Trump Tower meeting…
I also remember Nate Silver calling IBD/TIPP the most accurate in 2014 in preparation for 2016, but no mention of Rasmussen then….
And if you want facts, just look at the last six months of Trumps approval ratings and you find that Rasmussen sticks out like a sour thumb. It is obviously the high, that would be thrown out of any mean average, yet it could still be called “among”…. I think Rasmussen is accurate too, as long as you recognize the 6 point handicap you have to give it to find the truth, however…
In terms of your analysis of Hillary and female voters, I thought you said all of the pollsters use the same “standard?” Your “3.2” comment only further demonstrates my subjective argument, accept that you admit it can also be found within the objective category too, I think they call that a bias, which then challenges all polling, doesn’t it? Well, accept for those individual pollsters who appear to be in the plausible realm. Yet, if you look at the trends of a pollster or pollsters you will find the real truth. A poll is merely a snapshot, but multiple polls over time by a given pollster becomes a movie with an obvious plot, intend or not, and sometimes the movie is pure fiction, while at other times it is a documentary of the truth, but in either case there is a mission of a story to be told or wanting to be told…..
EC,
Statistical polling requires assumptions. EVERY single poll and pollster must make assumptions. If you discount everything as “bias” vs. educated assumptions based on interpretation of empirical information, you shouldn’t look at a single poll because you seem unable to distinquish the two. And, failure to be able to distinguish them means you are incapable of discerning anything of value in a poll.
Your continued reference to Rasmussen regarding approval. There are multiple factors which impact the differential. Two of which are:
1) Rasmussen only polls likely voters and has a strenuous strainer on this factor. He ADMITS his numbers do not include people who are now motivated to vote and if they change demographic distribution his numbers will be off. Similarly, those who don’t strain for likely voter ADMITS to the degree their demographic includes people who don’t vote, their numbers aren’t representative. People who understand polls understand the distinction.
2) Most pollsters of approval rating at this stage include all voters or registered voters. Some switch as elections get closer. Others don’t. They have their reasons, they are open about them, and people who understand polls understand the distinction.
People who don’t understand all I’ve said should not look at polls because not understanding the distinctions makes them incapable of discerning accurate information from the poll.
What happen to the “standards,” you mentioned earlier?
I invite everyone to go to RealClearPolitics and look at the Trump approval numbers for the last six months and it will be quite obvious to all the true aberration which Rasmussen is…. Troy justifies it with a “distinction,” but in so doing he has identified in his own way the 6 point difference that I have been talking about from the start. We can debate how much is bias or how much is methodology, but it exits no doubt as I said. Now the question is, what is PPP’s excuse?
EC,
If Rasmussen only includes likely voters and another pollster includes all Adults (50% of who won’t vote), can you grasp they will likely get different results? And, can you grasp they both could be sound polls even though they have different results?
Now let me talk real slow.
Rasmussen polls likely voters (with an aggressive strain meaning maybe voters are excluded. Rasmussen has Trump approval at 42%.
Gallup* polls all adults which means adults who don’t vote are included. Gallup has Trump approval at 37%.
Because they have a different composition of participants, having different results is not surprising and these different results in no indicate one pollster is better than the other.
*Gallup’s polls are often all adults because they often piggy back their political polls with their polls on behalf of corporate clients (which is actually their main business) and they less often have the screening questions which allow discerning the likelihood of the person to vote.
Most of the pollsters and polls we often see are reputable and follow sound practices. The only ones to be skeptical of are those done only during election years by colleges by poli sci students. The weakness of their polls isn’t intentional or because of bias but a lack of experience and systems which prevents them from not eliminating bad data. Plus, they often have small sample sizes.**
**Speaking of, another factor people who don’t understand polls is they seldom consider sample size and corresponding margin of error when giving credibility to a poll.
A sample size of 400 doesn’t mean the pollster is unreliable. Just that the accuracy of the polls has a greater chance of being inaccurate as compared to a poll with a sample size of 1,500.