CA-GOV: Brown Leads All Republican Hopefuls, Newsom Trails All

I disagree Dave - look at the Fav/Unfav #s (8.00 / 1)

The poll isn't meaningless. It ISN'T just about  name ID --there's something more going on here, look at the Fav/Unfav/Not Sure numbers:

Brown 53/37/10
Newsom  41/44/14  
Whitman 45/28/26
Poizner 36/32/32
Campbell 42/32/26

Brown runs better not because he has a significant name recognition adavantage over Newsom - he doesn't. Its only a 5 point difference (90% have opinion of Brown, 85% have opinion of Newsom)

Brown runs better because he has a +16 favorability rating, while Newsom's a -3

Newsom's problem is not that he's not well know enough - its that his negatives are so high    

Newsom's got serious problems. He's the only candidate with higher unfav than fav rating.  Its even worse when you look at intensity of feeling

Newsoms Very Fav is only 11%, his Very Unfavorable is 30%

For the other candidates, the ratio of their Very Fav/Very Unfav are all close to a 1:1 ratio:
Brown 20/24
Whitman 12/11
Poizner 8/12
Campbell 12/15

For Newsom its almost a 1:3 ratio (11/30)  

There's a campaign to run and there are things Newsom can do to try and alter the dynamics of the race. But its a lot more complicated than just trying to close a name ID gap

Here's the link to the numbers:
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

---

by: petercharles @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 06:26:50 AM UTC

Newsom's unfavs are a function of low name ID (0.00 / 0)

Or rather, targeted name ID.  Outside of the Bay Area he's only known as the gay marriage guy, which will read as unpopular to a large segment of the population - a segment not heavily represented in the Democratic primary electorate, I would add.  

Similarly, Brown's favs are a function of name ID, namely the 1970s version of Jerry Brown.

Given the complete lack of attention to the race at this point, I would say that fav-unfav numbers are not static and pretty unreliable.

---

by: David Dayen @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 17:09:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Unfortunately (0.00 / 0)

I think there's some wishful thinking here. Unfavorables don't correlate with unknown. If he was so unknown outside the Bay Area, people wouldn't have an opinion yet. That Gavin has a very large hurdle to jump is pretty clear. The good news for him is that there's very little difference in the backing for any of the Republicans vs. either Dem candidate, so far.  

Guess I still have San Francisco hippie values, although I'm an engineer

---

by: caligal @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 19:42:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

totally scratch the last sentence (0.00 / 0)

No good news for Newsom. I misread the poll results. Didn't see that poll winners were on left, losers on right, thought I saw Dem left Rep right.

Side comment, last year when both spoke informally at CDP executive Board meeting, Brown got a much stronger response from the delegates than Newsom did. It was pretty clear to me the Party faithful prefer Brown, as the voters seem to too.

Newsom represents the moneyed class in SF. His progressive support for statewide office is mainly based on dislike of Brown, gratitude at his support for marriage equality and hope that since he's younger he's less corrupt. It's hard for me to see the whole progressive base getting excited enough to push him to victory.

Guess I still have San Francisco hippie values, although I'm an engineer

---

by: caligal @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 19:53:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't disagree with that (0.00 / 0)

but I do think it's too early to tell, esp. when you have a race where the opponent will unquestionably try to drive up Jerry Brown's unfavs.  That's how Garry South rolls.

---

by: David Dayen @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 22:08:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That numbers may change doesn't mean they are irrelevant. (0.00 / 0)

So Brown's favorable name ID is due entirely to his having been governor 30 years ago, and not at all to his stint as mayor of Oakland, and his landslide (56%) victory for attorney general three years ago?  I doubt it.

And Newsom's gay marriage record is a mixed bag even inside the Democratic primary electorate.  Even among those who admire him for stepping forward on the issue, many are also aware that the time and method he chose may have been very costly to the cause.  It's not just Republicans who cringed when Newsom brayed "whether you like it or not."

---

by: DavidT @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 22:02:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

my take (0.00 / 0)

is that had Newsom not gotten involved, the legislature would have kept passing gay marriage bills and the first democratic governor to be elected would have signed on.

Whether the inevitable referendum would have passed is hard to say - but I suspect that gay marriage would have passed narrowly under those circumstances.

So ... as far as I can tell, Gavin Newsom reaped enormous political benefit within San Francisco by doing it; he cemented the support of the gay community and put to rest some of the sense, among the left, that he was a shill for corporate interests. It was a very, very good move for him. But I think it was a bad move for the gay movement as a whole ... and so to a certain extent I feel like he basically screwed me for his own political benefit.

On the other hand, I also think Jerry Brown effectively threw Strauss v Horton. Which leaves me suspecting that for a governor who actually supports gay rights, my best bet is to plump for Tom Campbell.

---

by: aphrael @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 23:48:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]