If opinion poll numbers today translate into official poll numbers in November, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius can order the champagne now: A recent Survey USA poll assessing the statewide support for each of the 50 governors found Sebelius tied for 15th place (with the governors of Oklahoma and Hawaii) with a 62 percent approval rating and a 33 percent disapproval rating. That’s not Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell’s 77 percent approval, but neither is it ethically challenged Ohio Gov. Bob Taft’s 80 percent disapproval.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- parkay on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- parkay on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
12 Comments
On the New Year’s Review article, the Eagle posted a comment that Gov. Sebelius had said nothing memorable in 2005. While I disagree, it is interesting to consider that comment in light of her public approval rating. She obviously isn’t doing anything wrong, to have this kind of approval among Kansans – two-thirds of whom are said to be Republican. Maybe the New Year’s Review article instead should have asked, has she said anything stupid, false or politically unwise – for 2005 the answer is obviously “no”.
Yawn for Gov. Sebelius, then.
Being invisible in order to maintain high approval ratings doesn’t hold a candle to using the governor’s bully pulpit to best serve Kansans.
Can’t argue with that.
By “nothing memorable” I am assuming the Eagle means nothing along the lines of “I am not a crook”, or “I didn’t have sex with that woman..” No, she didn’t goof up, she didn’t embarass herself or this state, she didn’t blame FEMA for the ice storm, she didn’t attract negative headlines. She did her job well, and is classy to boot.
Yep…another Republican that supports the Democratic governor. Strange things do happen…
Sebelius is a do nothing. I was listening to her on the Radio about her accomplishments. She tried to take credit for the increase of education spending. But when the person interviewing her said, “you couldn’t do anything for two years and only the Supreme Court on the third year made it happen.” She tried to backpeddle pretty quickly.
Yeah! It was embarresing to hear it from her. And I actually like her and thinks she is ok, but she is not that good. She has no vision or backbone. She is a play-it-safe politican though, so I give her credit for not stiring up the pot.
Sebelius does not have Kansas in her best interest. Sebelius cares only about Sebelius and her political career. Doing nothing is her attempt at minimizing criticism. Taking credit for accomplishments she had nothing to do with is a red-flag we all should take notice and challenge our tendencies to vote based on polls instead of vote based on factual data.
Groan. Proves once again that the best way to win is to have no record to run on. Someone here last week said we vote for who we like, not who does the best job.
Sebelius has a very high “likeablility” factor. I wonder if anyone asked these same people what they approved of, and to name her accomplishments, they would have a hard time listing any, and like the bushies, they would stammer that, well, they really like her and think she is a good person.
I really like my grandma and she is a nice person too, but I dont think she would make a great governor. Adequate maybe, but not great. I am always distressed by Kansas’ overwhelming desire to be average. We need leadership, not a placeholder.
That was I, KSGirl, who said that people vote for whom they like.
Actually, I got that idea from an excellent new book out entitled “Freakanomics.”
This is the author who stunned everybody when he pointed out that falling crime rates were directly related to legalized abortion in the 70’s.
He also showed, astonishingly, that campaign funding has very little impact on the result.
Interesting stuff.
Actually, I heard that the falling crime rate was due to the aging and mellowing out of the babyboomers, the largest population. When you have to start using a cane, it really limits the number of bank holdups you can succesfully pull off.We’re all too tired to party and raise hell like we used to!
The author of Freakonomics argues pretty convincingly for the abortion effect. He exerted statistical and logical controls to rule out various explanations — I can’t find my copy of the book right now and I can’t remember what he said, if anything, about the aging of our population.
As you might imagine the abortion explanation pissed off everyone along the ideological spectrum.
As I said on a different thread, I concur with PL on this book recommendation. It was a fasinating book. You can tell a lot about what people value and how they live their lives by looking at money. I never would have thought economics could be so interesting.
This is my last post on the “Freakonomics” subject.
BTW, this is not a book that you would want Ian to read. But having said that, I am pretty sure that he describes a study where he found that if a African American child is christened with a first name that sounds to be African American, there is a decided reduction in that person’s life-term earning potential. He isolated the effect by controlling for other explanations and it did appear to exert a noticable and statistically important effect.
He did this study with an African American economist who teaches at Harvard.
Sounds like an interesting book. I’ll give it a try.