New GA Poll Results

Check out the new Strategic Vision Georgia poll results released today . . .

Sample: 800 registered voters in Georgia, aged 18+
Conducted October 21-23, 2005.

Here are some highlights:

Sonny’s disapproval rating: 29%,
Bush’s approval on handling economy/Iraq: 42%/47%,
Approval of Bush’s nomination of Miers: 45% (34% disapprove),
Job approval of Taylor/Cox: 51%/53%,
Governor . . . Perdue vs. Taylor: 55%-37%,
Governor . . . Perdue vs. Cox: 54%-40%,
Reed favorable/unfavorable: 45%/35%,
Cagle favorable/unfavorable: 39%/16%,
Lt. Gov . . . Reed vs. Cagle: 45%-29%,
2008 GOP Presidential: Rudy (25%), McCain (18%), Newt (15%), Frist (5%),
2008 Dem Presidential: Hillary (36%), Kerry (14%), Gore (12%)

15 comments

  1. I’d take Strategic Vision’s results with a huge grain of salt. Survey USA released a poll that was in the field about a week earlier…much worse numbers for Saxby and also a little worse for Isakson. Seeing as how Strategic Vision has never had a political client disclose paying them enough to actually conduct a poll (they cost at least $10K and sometimes upwards of $30K) I would be very skeptical.

    I remember also hearing that the guy who runs the outfit had some sort of link to Reed. Maybe a Cagle person on the board here could investigate…

  2. GAWire says:

    That is actually a valid point, Chris. Strategic Vision’s numbers have actually been considered more credible outside of GA than within state politics. I have also heard that about someone being close to RR, but can’t say for sure.

    Anyways, it was one of the only public polls that I have found lately specifically addressing GA numbers. Also, the Hill article I mentioned before referred to this poll and mentioned that SV had this in the field.

    Can you send the link for Survey USA, if it has been published, so we can compare and contrast? Not that polls hardly ever mean anything at this point, but it would be interesting to start really comparing some numbers and discussing some scientific results instead of voicing the same old opinions on Reed, Cagle, Lt. Gov, Perdue, Cox, Taylor, etc.

  3. Bill Simon says:

    :::self-imposed gag order on the veracity of Strategic Vision’s poll results…but, over dinner, who knows what truths might be able to be extracted from my mouth?:::

  4. UGA Wins 2005 says:

    While the numbers look very good for Sonny, there is still much water to pour over the Ralph damn, both in Washington where McCain is using water torture on Reed and here at home.

    Meanwhile, Casey continues to rake in the cash, work the state and lay the foundation for his candidacy. I would say he is doing exactly what he should be doing.

  5. GAWire says:

    Another thing – instead of Reed’s actual fav/unfav numbers, the most key thing there is that his favorables have been consistantly declining and continue to go down, while Cagle’s numbers go up as he gets more name ID.

    What all of the numbers related to that race say is that the more people learn and hear about Reed, the less they support him; while, the more they hear about Cagle, the more they support him. Reed’s highest numbers were at his announcement, when the only thing people knew about him was his background working with the religious community. Now, that folks are learning the other side of Reed’s background, the tune is changing.

  6. GAWire says:

    Ok, we are a long ways out from the ’08 Presidential, and stock in these polling numbers on that question is relatively worthless; however, what those current numbers tell me about that race is that we (Republicans) have an issue that needs to be addressed. We need a candidate earlier than waiting until 2007 and the Party needs to get behind them early!

    In 2000, there was definitely a heated primary b/t Bush and McCain, but at the convention everyone for the most part got behind our candidate. What I am concerned about with some of these names and where they are currently ranking is whether or not that will be the case come time for the next convention.

  7. http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=0761b5d4-800c-4497-984d-22c7a45fa1c8

    There is some presidential approval that contradicts the SV results.

    http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=3f1afae2-1f8a-43cb-b208-710b7439ac70

    And that is some Senate polling.

    SUSA also asks a question about right track/wrong track for the nation, but that number is always very different from right track/wrong track for your state, so it isn’t really valid to compare that poll to this one.

  8. Elliott says:

    It’s incredibly fishy that no one knows who pays for these polls. Are we to believe that Strategic Vision is paying for a $10,000 – $30,000 poll out of the goodness of its heart? Get real.

    Someone has obviously commissoned this poll and I want to know who. Until then, I don’t trust the results at all. In fact, I think its irresponsible journalism even to report on these numbers without commenting on their mysterious origins.

  9. GAWire says:

    I hope you weren’t referring to me as a “journalist” or what I was doing as “reporting!” (haha) Surely, you were talking about the Hill reporter!

    Seriously, somebody probably did commission this poll, but firms will put their own polls in the field to get their numbers and use it to their own benefit. Btw, it doesn’t cost the firm $30K to do it themselves – SV could put this together with little costs – as a matter of fact, they could have just tacked these questions on with another poll that they were already conducting.

    One note on SV – they do have some credibility, but not with the Party. They aren’t at the level of POS or Tarrance or anything, but the media seems to use their results quite a bit. That is probably due to the fact that they are one of the few firms that publishes data for free while POS and others do not, which probably comes from them tacking on questions with other polls already in the field.

    See . . . I try to bring up discussion based on numbers, and now we are only debating the people that brought us the numbers. I guess we should just go back to bashing Reed outright . . .

  10. Bill Simon says:

    UGA Wins: When you state “…there is still much water to pour over the Ralph damn…”, the word “dam” is the correct “dam” not the fire-and-brimstone, Hell and damnation “damn.” Get the difference? 🙂

  11. Silence says:

    Hm. Mhmmm. Hmmm. In deference to my dear friend and comrade in arms, Erick, I’ll refrain from comment on this issue, as I’ve broken my promise in that area time and time again. What I WILL say is this: I find it interesting, looking at SV’s website, to note a couple of things:

    1. Graphic on home page is a selection straight from MS Office 2001, and the scheme and theme comes from a set of pre-built themes on Register.com.

    3. Client list? The only two clients from Georgia for whom SV has done polling are Mike Crotts and Shannon Goessling . Not quite the blow-me-away portofolio.

    However, the CEO seems to have quite the reputation, so to speak.

    Interesting.

  12. Romegaguy says:

    my observation about polls is that if they make your candidate look good then you claim how accurate they are but if they dont then most people in GA will say “Remember that all of the polls said Sonny was going to lose to Roy.”

Comments are closed.