Who's the most popular governor in the land? A fairly well-informed observer might guess Jon Hunstman, Jr. of Utah (who won't be a governor for much longer), Charlie Crist of Florida or Sarah Palin of Alaska. Those would all be pretty good guesses, except for Palin, who was once extremely popular in Alaska, but no longer is. The answer, however, appears to be governor Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming, who when his approval was last tested back in August, was viewed favorably by some 81 percent of voters.
What makes this more remarkable is that Freudenthal is a Democrat -- something which a only 26 percent of Wyoming voters are (52 percent are Republicans). On the other hand, Freudenthal has one big advantage: Wyoming is a small state, and as our own Andrew Gelman has noted, it seems to be much easier to maintain higher approval scores when you have fewer constituents to please.
What I've set out to do then, is to develop an index of gubernatorial power rankings that takes a governor's approval scores and adjusts it for these two things: the size of a state and its partisan makeup. Let me explain in a bit more detail.
Approval Ratings. Approval ratings are taken from all available public polling data collected in the last three months (since March 1st). We take a governor's positive rating less his negative rating (for example, 52 percent approve and 44 percent disapprove is a +8) and then simply average the numbers across all the polls. A maximum of one poll -- the most recent -- is used from each survey firm. In other words, this is basically the Real Clear Politics approach. Where no polls have been conducted on a governor within the past three months, we take the most recent available one; such instances are denoted in the chart below.
Obviously this is not a perfect metric. Approval ratings tend to be associated with fairly large house effects at different polling firms; a more sophisticated version of this analysis would correct for that. But, this is what we're going to go with for now.
Adjustments for Size of State and Party ID. The next step is to create an expected approval rating based on two factors: the size of a state and its partisan leanings. The adjustment for the size of the state is based on a regression analysis of the unadjusted approval scores against the square root of a state's population. Small-state governors are expected to have above-average approval ratings, and large-state governors below average ones.
The other adjustment is for party ID. Party affiliation isn't quite as important for governors as it is for other types of office-holders, as they aren't necessarily beholden to the whims of their national party and have somewhat more flexibility to define themselves. That's why Freudenthal is the Governor of Wyoming, and Republican Jim Douglas is the chief in Vermont. Nevertheless , party has some influence. Based on previous (unpublished) work I've done on the 2006 election, each additional point of advantage a gubernatorial candidate has in terms of his partisan ID advantage translates into about half a point at the ballot box on Election Day. That is, all else being equal, we'd expect the Democratic gubernatorial candidate in Michigan, where Democrats had a 12-point party ID edge on the 2008 exit poll, to win by about 6 points.
We take this rule of thumb and apply it to a governor's expected approval rating. For every point's worth of advantage a governor's party has in his state (as according to 2008 exit polls), we add half a point to his expected approval rating. Obviously, in cases where the governor's party is at a disadvantage, this lowers his expected approval rating.
The Results. The final step is to compare a governor's actual approval average against his expected one; this is what we refer to as our power rating. For example, Hunstman's approval rating in a recent Dan Jones poll was a remarkable +61 in Utah, but because he hails from a state which is both very red and relatively small, we'd expect him to score a +18. His power rating, then is, 61 less 18, or +43 -- still very good.
Power ratings for all 50 governors are listed below. (And yes, I know that Kathleen Sebelius is no longer the governor of Kansas, but nobody has tested Mark Parkinson yet).
Freudenthal tops our list with a net score of +65; the bonus he gets for being a Democrat in a very red state roughly cancels out with the penalty he gets for being in a very small state. Following him are Charlie Crist of Florida (+61), Jodi Rell of Connecticut (+58), Huntsman (+43), and Mike Beebe of Arkansas (+42). At the bottom of the list is David Paterson of New York, whose power rating is an execrable -44. Jim Gibbons of Nevada (-35) and Deval Patrick of Massachusetts (-24) follow him on the worst list.
Let's take a slightly more detailed look at the power ratings for the governors who are considered serious contenders for the 2012 presidential nomination:
As we mentioned, Crist, who gets a lot of extra credit for governing a large state, ranks second overall, whereas Hunstman ranks fourth of 50. Bobby Jindal, meanwhile, even if his national coming out was somewhat awkward, is still very popular in Louisiana, and rates as a +24 overall. I didn't include everyone's favorite darkhorse contender, Mitch Daniels of Indiana; he has excellent ratings but declared today that he has no interest in 2012
The ratings for the other contenders, however, are fairly average. Tim Pawlenty gets a little extra credit for governing in a blue state, but it's not enough to make up for somewhat marginal approval numbers -- there's no particular sign that Palwenty has any special political acumen. I've also never understood why Mark Sanford of South Carolina or Haley Barbour of Mississippi are regarded as national contenders. Neither is especially popular at home, and indeed, Barbour is somewhat unpopular relative to what you'd expect for a Republican in Mississippi. Then there's Palin, who remains more popular than not in Alaska, but has seen her ratings drop very sharply, and has a high expected score because she's the governor of a small, red state. Her power rating of -7 ranks 36th of 50. Think she'll pull a Pawlenty and decide she has better things to do than hang out in Juneau?
6.03.2009
Gubernatorial Power Rankings: Crist, Freudenthal Top List
by Nate Silver @ 7:36 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

50 comments
As a New Yorker, I could already tell you that Paterson was going to be at the bottom of that list.
A new toy! Oh what fun. Put a new heading at top also, 'Governor Rankings"
Getting back to what all of us love here so much.
Funny to see my Governator somewhat high on the list (I completely understand why though, of course) considering his approval rating.
What the hell are you doing, Nate!? A -20 expected score for Texas? -34 for California? You KNOW those can't be right. Are you seriously telling me that if the hypothetical moderate Governor Bland takes office in California he can automatically expect roughly a 33% approval/67% disapproval rating?
I think I know what you did. You extrapolated a linear trend that wasn't there. I believe you when you say that governors in large states have a hard time appeasing all their constituents, but I honestly don't see how you can justify the -34 figure for California.
IIUC, Pawlenty's approval ratings are currently depressed by the ongoing Franken/Coleman debacle, so I'd say they're somewhat misleading as a gauge for his potential in 2012. He remains quite skilled at being liked by both parties (he got a lot of students to like him, begrudgingly, when he spoke at Carleton College).
@Ethan: No, the hypothesis is a typical Republican should have -34 net approval as California governor.
The adjustment for California may be a bit extreme but ... we're going by what the data says. It might actually be a bit more extreme if I used different assumptions, such as the raw population total rather than the square root.
And yes, that's only for a Republican in California ... the adjustment for a Democrat would not be as severe.
I think Eliot Spitzer could beat David Paterson right now. Hell, I think SPitzer's whore could beat Paterson. What a complete fuck up. I sure hope the Demos run somebody else against him in the NY Primary. But who? Cuomo doesn't want it.
@ STepper
Cuomo doesn't want it.
Are you sure? I haven't seen or heard anything like this.
@Jyrinx: I agree absolutely with Ethan. Even though the score is for an an average Republican in California, it can't be that low.
Texas is the huge outlier for me. Do you really think a generic Republican governor of Texas would have a 40% approve/60% disapprove rating?
Further problems: Take a look at the states with the lowest expected ranking (in order):
- California
- Texas
- Florida
- Georgia
- Kansas
- Pennsylvania
And now the ones with the highest:
- Idaho
- Alaska
- Delaware
- Utah
- Nebraska
- North Dakota
Obviously, some of the reason for the "expected" number is party effect. But five of the six lowest "expected" ratings come from states in the top 10 in population. And five of the six highest "expected" ratings come from states ranked 38th or lower in population. Ultimately, I think too much emphasis is placed on the size of the state.
For what it's worth, I think the whole metric is a bit screwy. It's hard to argue that any generic governor -- Republican or Democrat, small state or large state -- should have an "expected" negative approval rating. Yet that's the case in 20 states. And if my count is correct, in 13 states (FL, TN, OH, TX, IL, VA, PA, GA, CA, NC, CO, MI, NY), both a Democrat and a Republican would, by default, have negative ratings. How can that be? Is Nate suggesting people hate the candidate they vote for but just vote for him or her anyway?
I love the idea of "power rankings" for governors, but they need to be tweaked to take these issues into account.
Not much to say here, but I feel some things need to be said.
First and most importantly, I'm sorry for being a bit inflammatory with my first post. Looking back, that post was more flame bait-ish than I had intended. Still, it looks like I got some attention. :D
Second, thanks to Jyrinx for clarifying that the score is for a typical Republican governor, not a typical governor of any party. I should have seen that myself, and you were right to correct me.
Third, a huge thanks to AJS for looking more deeply into the population issue than I did. I also applaud him or her for not only being more substantial, but more civil than I was.
Nate, I love your site because you put so much effort into your analysis. For the most part, you really apply statistics as they should be applied. Nevertheless, I think you also get carried away with fitting trends to everything, even when there might not be anything there. To do so, in my humble opinion, is to be human; who can honestly say they've never gotten carried away with a hypothesis, whether founded on statistics or heuristics? You by far offer the best political analysis of this kind among any source, but I think this is an instance where you tried to say too much with too little data to support you, or at least an inappropriate model.
Yes, it wouldn't surprise me at all to find people who voted for a candidate now disapproving of them. First, we're measuring approval part way through the term, not just after the election, which is plenty of time for people who voted to decide their candidate is a screwup after all. Second, I would expect many people who register disapproval are cynical about the whole process and don't vote.
@Joe: "Yes, it wouldn't surprise me at all to find people who voted for a candidate now disapproving of them. First, we're measuring approval part way through the term, not just after the election, which is plenty of time for people who voted to decide their candidate is a screwup after all."
Yes, the "actual" approval numbers look at how someone is doing at this point in their term, but the "expected" number should apply at all times (if it doesn't, it's useless to compare governors who are at different points in their terms). And what I don't understand is a situation like the one in North Carolina. According to Nate's calculations, a generic Democrat should be at -1% expected approval in NC, while a generic Republican should be at -7% (Dems have am 11% party ID advantage per the exit polls). How can voters disapprove of both candidates at the time they vote for them?
Furthering that example, Democrat Bev Perdue won 50-47. In terms of two-party vote share, Perdue lead Republican Pat McCrory 51.7-48.3. Assuming that votes are equal to approval on election day, Perdue outperformed her "expected" by two points (with -1 approval, she "should" have lost 50.5-49.5), while McCrory also outperformed his expected by two points (with -7 approval, he "should" have lost 53.5-46.5). It doesn't make sense that both should be able to outperform their "expected" number on election day.
"Second, I would expect many people who register disapproval are cynical about the whole process and don't vote."
I would think surveys that ask about approval rating only look at registered/likely voters and therefore screen out those non-voters.
And @Ethan: Thanks for your kinds words. (FTR, I'm a "him".)
If the expected number is averaged across the entire term (as it must be, since it doesn't take into account when in the term it is), it's very possible that it could be negative, even if immediate post-election approval ratings are necessarily positive.
It's also possible that people are voting for someone of whom they disapprove, because they disapprove of the other candidate more. That is, I'm not sure that election results necessarily imply a lower bound on approval ratings.
How about posting the unweighted average approval ratings to put the weighted numbers in perspective?
The other issue is that the 'expected approval rating' is only relevant as a baseline against which to judge actual approval. Thus a recently elected R governor in a large, strongly blue state might have a slightly positive approval rating, but a very positive power rating. That seems about right to me, because it suggests that the governor has captured the middle ground, the default state of which is blue. That is the nature of 'power' in politics and the whole point of the analysis.
Ethan and Nate--
Yep. -34 sounds mebbe a bit high for "der governator", but then this is CA. Oh, Nate, if you want truly abysmal perception and performance as a governor, let's try California's erstwhile Attorney General, the Hon. Jerry Brown, aka "Governor Moonbeam" when he held the office back in the 1970's. BTW, you think the GOP can be reactionary, how about telling the state university system faculty they should rely on the "psychic income" for teaching rather than actual cash. Yep. Gov. Moonbeam--who is running for governor again. His 1970's administration gutted the state's infrastructure spending, preferring to plant flowers alongside highways rather than repair and maintain the roads...and they even got that wrong (planted Flanders Poppies [red] instead of California Poppies [golden orange, the state flower]).
I can't quite figure out the value of these numbers -- which is not to say they aren't of value, just that I don't yet see it.
Obviously, a "powerful" governor with a low actual approval rating will still have trouble getting stuff done in his or her state; similarly, a "weak" governor with a high approval rating could be fairly effective.
So is the point of these really just for the national stage -- for thinking about the presidential election? If so, why even bother running the numbers for the Democrats? And is it even clear if these "power" ratings would correspond to doing well in presidential elections? To determine that, I think you'd need to go back and look at historical power ratings.
It seems to me that these power ratings, in some ways, just tell us how impressed (or unimpressed) we should be with these governors. I don't yet see much value beyond this.
@Opus 132:
Cuomo was quoted recently as saying he has no plans to run for governor.
I am truly perplexed by the Texas number. I think the methodology needs a tweak or two.
AJS said:
Yes, the "actual" approval numbers look at how someone is doing at this point in their term, but the "expected" number should apply at all times (if it doesn't, it's useless to compare governors who are at different points in their terms). And what I don't understand is a situation like the one in North Carolina. According to Nate's calculations, a generic Democrat should be at -1% expected approval in NC, while a generic Republican should be at -7% (Dems have am 11% party ID advantage per the exit polls). How can voters disapprove of both candidates at the time they vote for them?
---------------------------------
I'm not sure this objection makes sense. It's a handicap, not to be taken literally. If a football team is given a +3 point handicap in betting circles due to being on the road (meaning that the gambling community believes the team is 3 points worse than its opponent), does that mean that the gambling community believes the team has scored negative three points at kick-off just by walking into the hostile stadium? Of course not, it's just a reflection of an expected difficulty to overcome. It's not a literal thing, it's building an effect into the tangible numbers that is expected to matter over the course of the game.
That's the same thing here. It's not that a Republican governor in California has a -33 approval rating the moment he/she takes office, but that he/she has serious house effects playing against him/her over the course of his/her term.
Nate, maybe you're just "going by what the data says", but you've adjusted for common sense numerous times before. I think you should do something to account for gut-level wrong assertions in your charts. People take your tables and graphs really seriously, as they should, but you should take a proportionate amount of care to see that they don't contain important inaccuracies.
The California number is especially important, given what's happening there right now. What your chart says is that as far as anyone can tell, Schwarzenegger is doing a completely unremarkable job, but anyone living there can tell you that California is exploding, and Schwarzenegger is tanking.
There must be some way to adapt this to be relevant and consistent.
Parting thoughts before I go to bed: if the "expected" numbers are truly predictive, shouldn't there be a strong pull to them? That is, shouldn't we see a whole bunch of governors whose "net" column reads in the -5 to +5 range or thereabouts?
What I'm really talking about is the error bars on the "expected" column. Of course, since this standard deviation was neglected, your analysis is still technically valid. My point, however, is that if the error bars on the "expected" column are in the range of plus or minus 25 points (which is what this data seems to indicate), why bother with this analysis at all?
I generally like your posts, but I'm gonna have to disagree with your analysis on this one. I posit the following (There will likely be some overlap with preceding posts):
1.Your calculation of the expected values makes some wrong assumptions. I don't doubt that some correlation between state size and governor popularity exists, but I don't think its so strong to the point where a generic Republican governor of Texas would have a -20 approval rating. Your own data seems to prove this. Only 7 governors are within 5 points of their expected value. If your numbers were correct I would assume more governors, especially those newly elected and those not making much news, would fall much closer to the expected value. If this teaches us anything it's probably that a governors actions in office, and the general mood of the state (ex. My state, Michigan has a really unpopular governor. Wonder why?) mean more than partisan id and state size.
2. Even if your methodology for determining the ranking is correct, its a meaningless number. I think political capital and electoral prospects would be a lot more likely to be governed by approval ratings and overall political abilities. I guess you could say that insiders might consider it, but if that's true a lot it did for Tim Kaine and Charlie Crist's Vice Presidential prospects.
Re: Methodology
It's great to see a discussion about methodology and numbers on the comment thread- thanks Ethan, Jirynx, AJS and the rest.
@Nate- I would think some of your extreme numbers are driven by extremes in party ID- you're using a linear trend for this, while I would assume it flattens out at the edges. AFAIK a Wyoming Democrat would be rather moderate, perhaps not much more liberal (if at all) than a Connecticut Republican. maybe some sort of error-function-like curve would be better for the party-ID numbers than a linear one. Also, I would be interested to see how much the "expected" column changes if you use PVI instead of part ID.
Last but not least- your "large state" effect does indeed seem to be a bit stronger than it should be. perhaps an even more moderate function would be usefull. A log might be too shallow, but maybe a fourth root would work better (dynamic range of 1:3 instead of 1:10).
Again, always enjoying the math side of things,
LK.
WV: quallies. What are the quallies of Palin to be governor, that they already think of her as President?
Man I would have loved to see where Rod Blagojevich would have fit into this. Just a morbid curiousity, I suppose.
Have you guys (or anyone else) tried running a correlation study between the price of a barrel of oil and the Alaskan governor's popularity?
It seems to me like there would be a really strong correlation there.
Alaskans receive a great deal of income directly from the state and indirectly from the oil companies. The state is also able to build infrastructure, fund police, etc at a much better rate during good times.
It seems to me that the only thing a lot of Alaskans hear from their governor all year is "The annual permanent fund payment will be X". If X is high, they love the governor. If X is low, they hate them.
Honestly, I thought that it was severely underreported that Palin's record popularity just happened to coincide with a spike in oil prices. In a way, she got lucky. On the other hand, her current fall in popularity probably has the same cause. By the same token, Alaskans might not have been as upset with Frank Murkowski's ethics as they were frustrated by weak oil prices.
I'd love to see you guys go back and map these two variables against each other.
I guess the real test of a setup like this is to look to see if there's correlation between approval ratings and Nate's expected values, and if this system corrects properly for that. I don't think what's presented here is enough data to tell (I tried, although disclaimer: I don't really know what I'm doing regarding stats) so you'd have to take a historical look. It sounds like Nate did use past data in formulating this. It'd be interesting to see it.
"For every point's worth of advantage a governor's party has in his state [...]"
Hey Nate, please stop using his/him/he as "generic" pronouns. Thanks.
Re: Daniels: I sorta thought it was the "in" thing to declare no interest in running for higher office until the day when you actually do announce candidacy. You get to look like a crusader in your current job, unmoved by ambition, a sure bet not to abandon your loyal constituents at the first sign of greener pastures. If people want you to run enough (and the focus groups/buzz are in your favor), then it seems like when you announce you are following the will of the people--swept by their momentum into reluctant but heroic service, rather than just in a personal power grab. If the people have spoken and don't want you to run, you haven't embarrassed yourself/damaged your brand by embarking on what would seem like a failed mission. Plus you get a nice shiny press conference when you "shock the world" with your announcement to run on July 4th, 2011. You're a big sports guy, Nate--don't all of the coaches do this also when they are up for a new job?
So Pawlenty has recently downplayed a presidential bid. Romney downplayed one also, saying it was the "distant future." About the only GOP politician who is eager to fan the flames of his candidacy is Gingrich, and ironically that is probably just to bring attention to his pundit ideas and _not_ predictive of an actual presidential run. If Daniels is the grassroots darkhorse, I would have to conclude it is VERY likely he will run--regardless of what theatrical nonsense he says about his campaign in 2009.
It's not clear to me why Jindal has an expected rating of -1. If this is based on sheer party ID, we may be seeing the outsized proportion of Democrats in Louisiana who actually vote Republican, but just never changed registration.
I agree with Daniel. Louisiana is clearly a red state outside of New Orleans and not too large, so I would expect Jindal to have an expected positive rating despite a lingering Dem party affiliation.
Maybe a better metric would be to use the party voting spread from the last presidential election instead of voter registration.
In addition to the obvious trouble with California's outsized population edge, isn't there another problem here? Democrats nationally have a higher partisan ID than Republicans. Your analysis compares the party ID split between the parties directly rather than relative to the national split. This disadvantages Democratic governors automatically.
The split among IDed voters (no independents, undecided, or others) nationally is about 55D-45R. Now let's say there's a state with a partisan split of 52D-48R. In your analysis, a Democrat would have a positive "expected" popularity rather than a negative one, so when calculating actual minus expected, s/he would lose points.
But in reality, that governor is working in a state that's more difficult than average. Since you are ranking governors relative to each other, this penalizes Democrats.
Republicans have a steeper hill to climb. But because that's true nationwide, suggesting that a popular Republican has accomplished more than a popular Democrat is exactly the same sort of analysis that led Mark Halperin to conclude McCain won the week, week after week, while he was clearly losing the campaign. They still have to get themselves to 50% of the electorate. And if we're trying to judge the governors' ability to do that relative to each other, we should be doing that relative to their ability to deliver 50% of an average electorate, which is 55D-45R nationwide, not 50D-50R. A fair comparison would weight for that.
Dave Fruedenthal is definitely a moderate. He'd certainly be considered a republican in most new england states. He's well liked here in Wyoming because he's been essentially apolitical. He's a no-nonsense guy who is fiscally conservative and doesn't "feel" like a politician.
From your analysis, the results are troubling. There are 13 Democrats with negative scores and only four Republicans with negative scores. From your analysis, 2010 is going to be 1994 all over again.
esong_98, that's exactly what I'm getting at. You can't look at it that way. Because the overall electorate is slanted 55D-45R instead of 50-50, you need to shift things that way if you're trying to get a picture of national mood (which your comment about 1994 seems to say you are).
Nate says partisan advantage ID is worth 0.5 at the polls. The "expected" approval is based on comparing a state's partisan ID to +/- 0, but if it was compared to D+10 instead, it would reduce the apparent blue state Dem edge and raise the apparent red state GOP edge. So the result would be to lower the expected approval for Dems by 5 points and raise the expected approval for GOPers by 5 points.
Looked at this way, Perdue's final result goes positive, Rounds and Schwarzenegger go negative. Close-call Dems Culver, O'Malley, Beshear, Sebelius, and Manchin get a lot of breathing room, while GOPers with plenty of room Brewer, Paulenty, Douglas, and Sanford start sweating.
So instead of it being 13Ds & 4Rs for negatives and 4Ds & 2Rs that are positive by 5 or fewer points, it goes to 12Ds and 6Rs negative and 1D and 5Rs by 5 or fewer.
That's still, on balance, good for Republicans, but it's not a whitewash like it currently looks to be. For governors who are close or in trouble, it goes from 17D-6R to 13D-11R.
If you're trying to get a national mood, you can't use Nate's chart as-is because he's comparing the state split to no split instead of to the national split, which is much better for Dems.
A politician saying they have no planbs to run is not the same thing as saying they are not going to. Politicians, especially skilled ones, are very careful about the words they use. Thats not to say Cuomo will challenge Paterson, simply I wouldn't count it out. Intersting to see 3 prosepctive GOP Presidential candidates (Sanford, Barbour and Palin) in the bottom half of that list, along with the Governor of California.
@AJS:
How can voters disapprove of both candidates at the time they vote for them?
Because they're voters.
How often have you heard that people were voting for the lesser of two evils, and that they wish someone they like (Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Al Sharpton, Hugo Chavez) were a viable choice?
Look at California. Voters have passed propositions which lowered or limited taxes, and propositions which required increased government spending.
Voters ain't logical. They're not responsible. They're people who walk into a booth and punch a card or pull a lever.
But...you raise good points.
wv: synesc: An extravagant hair-care product.
Here might be a way to validate this analysis: go back in time and do the same analysis for historical governors who hit the Big Stage big time. Off the top of my head, I'd like to see the numbers for:
Clinton
Dukakis
Reagan
Carter
Wallace
Stevenson
Dewey
Roosevelt
...as well as, possibly, a few who were less successful, like Vilsack, Huckabee, the aforementioned Jerry Brown, Earl Warren, Rockefeller, and etc. My guess is that the data would show that this model isn't at all predictive.
Butt I agree with Paterson's ranking. STepper's right! Ashley Dupre should run.
I wish Freudenthal wasn't so blasted ethical though.
He declined early to run for the Senate last year because he'd have been running against Barrasso, who he had appointed to the seat following the death of the incumbent and he felt it might be unethical to in effect have 'chosen his opponent.'
Since he's term-limited in 2010, I don't know if Freudenthal is planning to run for another office later on or just retire and go do something else.
It's possible for both Republicans and Democrats to have negative expected approval ratings because they're not an absolute indicator of expected votes, just "feelings". That is, if Bush was able to run for re-election last year he'd almost certainly exceed his approval rating simply because he'd win votes from Republicans who disapproved of him but disapproved of Obama even more. Which makes me question what approval ratings are good for, since they're not measured relative to anything. If I approve of someone, what does that mean if it's not directly correlated to who I'll vote for?
"I didn't include everyone's favorite darkhorse contender, Mitch Daniels of Indiana; he has excellent ratings but declared today that he has no interest in 2012"
Senator Barack Obama said the same thing in 2005.
Why do you regress the square root of the population, when your previous post on this subject plotted log population?
It's interesting to see how the more 'moderate' Republicans seem to fair better than the more conservative ones, although each is particular to his or her own state. I think this might have some impact on election 2012.
Thanks for the breakdown.
The most evident number in this article is the negative 44% of Governor Pattison.
That number almost assures that Attorney General Cumo will be the Democratic nominee for Governor.
The only question now is the orchestration of events and the exit strategy of the current Governor.
Check out the
Electronic Cigarette
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment