Saturday, October 28, 2006

Here a Poll, There a Poll...

Although Kenski has been reported polling for the state Republican party, it doesn't look like any results will be released soon. Results have been whispererd here and there, but not enough to confirm actuals.

The Giffords and Graf campaigns, likewise, have internal polling numbers they are not releasing, but insiders report a tighter race than the most recent Zimmerman results. Ditto the Arizona Association of Realtors which is sitting on its numbers as well.

It does appear that Kenski is working on another poll that is more likely to provide information to the public. With those commissioning polls holding their cards close to the vest, however, we won't be holding our breath waiting for results.

24 comments:

sirocco said...

TC,

I believe your information concerning what the Giffords campaign internals show is incorrect.

Further, I can't see any reason why Kenski wouldn't releae her results unless they were pretty poor, as Graf's campaign needs a shot of good news. My suspicion is they show a 1-12% margin, but that's pure speculation.

I haven't heard anything about a poll from the Realtor's group, but again, if a private group were going to pay for a poll I would expect them to make it public.

206isCancer.com said...

I spoke with one - Jim Nintzel - who writes for a paper that calls itself the Tucson Weekly yesterday. He said that Margaret Kenski was currently in the process of conducting a poll for them. Unlike the so-calledKVOA/Daily Star poll conducted by Dem hack Zimmerman, he said that he expected that the Weekly poll should contain the internals of the polling sample breakdown. He indicated to me that they should have the poll numbers sometime on Monday and might release those numbers then, but that they probably wouldn't have the entire breakdown finished until Wednesday when the Weekly gets published online. Let's hope that he's right, and we can see a poll conducted that will have info on the polling sample as early as Monday. Until then, I guess, we'll all just have to base the polling numbers upon the Zogby poll, which was the last poll to release some kind of information on its polling sample.

By the way, I've looked at the actual poll results of the Zimmerman poll, and it showed nothing on the Republican/Democrat/Independent, male/female, County-by-County breakdown of the polling sample, so I was right once again in my prediction. Her poll is worthless. Without this information, the poll doesn’t show how it is an accurate portrayal of CD8. The polling results showed that Zimmerman polled 600 likely voters, and that she based her likely voter sample upon the 2004 Presidential Election and not the 2002 Congressional Election. That is the deepest that she delves into who she actually polls in her sample. If I went into Graf campaign HQ and polled the people there, I would likely find that he has 100% support from the likely voters there. That wouldn't make the poll an acurate portrayal of the district though. I also disagree with her that 2004 is the best gauge. The turnout in the '04 Presidential Election was extremely high, higher than we have ever seen. Even with a contested Congressional Election this year, the true turnout should be somewhere between '02 and '04. I believe turnout will be closer to ’02, which had a closely watched and covered Gubernatorial Election than ‘04, which had an Election to make sure that a man who should have been hung for treason didn't become President.

P.S. - Randall Holdridge, aka Steve Huffman, I’m amazed that your head can fit through a doorway with how you believe that you are just such an amazing writer. Nintzel is a much better writer for the Weekly than you ever were.

x4mr said...

TC,

First, want to recognize that the thanks I extended to Framer for writing up Thursday's debate should have gone to you. Challenged folk like myself sometimes get confused when a blog has more than one person posting the original stories.

As I've written, I think Graf is going to need one hell of a political forklift to raise his numbers above 40%, but in fact this will probably occur when the real poll, the one that counts, occurs on 11/7. Will he reach Giffords? I think not, but hey, not in the mood to argue.

206, I remain skeptical that you are KMBlue as Randall insists, but I can absolutely assure you that he is not Steve Huffman.

KMBlue, like the recently arrived Giffonator Marco, really tears into the personal and tries to argue that as a person Giffords is this terrible thing. That's what Giffonators do. I don't get that read from 206, regardless of who he supports.

Got into a good conversation yesterday (having nothing to do with Marco) regarding the NRA and a certain pro-gun obsession well exhibited by Marco. I might have to write a post about it, but summarizing, the conversation centered on how certain issues (gun control, abortion, gay rights) cause a significant portion of middle and lower class people to vote for the very candidates that will screw them economically.

Cannot stand Rove, but afraid I have to acknowledge the guy must be pretty bright.

Liza said...

Someone polled me a couple of nights ago. I'm not on top of all the pollsters the way all of you are, so I have no idea whose poll this was. Based on the questions, it was a Republican poll of some kind and I believe it was what you call a push poll. There were a few questions about who I was voting for - Kyl/Pederson, Graf/Giffords, Napolitano/whoever, etc...There was this one question about the ACLU. They wanted to know if it would affect my opinion of a candidate if I knew that candidate was a member of the ACLU. There were a couple of other questions that led me to believe this was a Republican poll.

Well, the person asking the questions wasn't very good and was derailed by my answer on each question. When I told him that I had the deepest respect for all members of the ACLU, that pretty much ended the interview.

Polls schmolls. Will this ever end? Actually, it will and Giffords will be going to Washington DC. The only unknown here is whether or not she will win by a landslide or a narrow margin.

206isCancer.com said...

x4mer-

I willingly admit that RanDELL Holdridge is probably not Steve Huffman. It’s just one of those things that I thought was funny to call him in response to his posts during the Primary. RanDELL never made any coherent points, and he was the only one defending Huffman in blog posts, so naturally I thought, hey it’s got to be either Huffman’s mom or Huffman himself. I think that it really got under his skin, so because I was amused, I kept saying it. After a while, I just realized he was just one of those people who just hate all Republicans and everything that Republicans stand for, so that made it even more obnoxious that he always defended Steve Huffman and meant that he had really earned the name. I’d understand better if RanDELL was a liberal Republican, but from what he says, he sounds much more like a moral relativist European Socialist. I also admit that I find it amusing that he calls me “KMBlue.” Although, I have not yet seen any of the posts from “KMBlue,” and that could be a bad thing, since I would not be able to make a character judgment before accepting this comparison, I find his calling me this as validation of the fact that it really did get to him personally, that I have called him Steve Huffman or other Huffman nicknames like Stevie Boy or “Chicken of the Year.” So, even though, I’m tempted to stop calling him Steve Huffman, I just haven’t been able to break the habit yet.

206isCancer.com said...

Liza-

After making some interesting points, you delve into absolutes about who has already won the election. Quoting Liza: “Polls schmolls. Will this ever end? Actually, it will and Giffords will be going to Washington DC. The only unknown here is whether or not she will win by a landslide or a narrow margin.” I would be interested to know which psychic, was it Miss Cleo or somebody else, who already told you who won an election that is far from over.

Push polls can be conducted by anybody. The Minutemen could be doing it, or the NRCC could have seen some good number for Graf and could be sneaking back into town, and they could even be doing it. I’d be interested to know though.

You are right though, not everybody despises the ACLU. It is ok for some people that the ACLU defends NAMBLA, the North American Man Boy Love Association while attacking the Boy Scouts of America. NAMBLA, if you don’t know, is a group of pedophile men who want to lower and eventually eliminate the sexual age of consent in the United States. NAMBLA believes that young children should be allowed to express their sexual desires toward adults in an open and safe manner. The Boy Scouts, if you don’t know, is a group of young men who do evil things like service projects and believe in being “trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent,” while doing their duty to God and their Country. I guess, the ACLU isn’t so bad after all!

Kralmajales said...

If there are such results...which there aren't...why on earth would they sit on them?

The only reason I can think of, short of this being BS, is that these people and groups don't want Randy to win.

Funny...MOST people don't want Randy to win.

206isCancer.com said...

kralmajales-

Refer to my previous post. As of yesterday (Friday), I was told by Jim Nintzel that they were still in the field conducting the poll. We'll see very soon, as early as Monday on the preliminary results and should have the full results Wednesday afternoon.

HK USP said...

x4mr,

You mentioned that some people vote a single issue (guns, abortion, LGBT) and support a candidate that they otherwise would not agree with.

I do not agree with but understand why someone would support legal abortion and LGBT issues. Those fall under banner of tolerating different personal decisions. What really looses me is when someone supporting the right to have a baby sucked out of the womb wants to tell me what kind of firearm to own. Or that Chris and Pat (two gay men) can get married but I have to check with state before purchasing a gun.

I think gun control is a big looser for the Democrats who support it, especially in a state like Arizona. There is no reason that Gabby could not have worked with the NRA while she was in the legislature and have earned at least a B or B+ from them. If that were the case this race would be over. As it is if Randy wins by 100 votes then it will have been single-issue voters, such as pro-gun people, that put him over the top. I really doubt that in CD 8 there is a powerful political force on the other side of this issue that has been much help to Gabby.

Kralmajales said...

Great 206. We shall see how close it is. But given that there have been countless polls and the closest has Graf at 6%, I am not at all worried.

I think polls, anyway, are going to drastically underestimate the damage that is going to occur on election day.

Poll methodology, as you know, is based on the past. It is based on identifying and including republican and democrat areas in the same in numbers proportionate to what they USED to be. Also, it gets at likely voters of the PAST. This year is way way different.

What is coming is an avalanche where independents are breaking 2-1 nationally to dems, where women have virtually deserted the republican party, and where voters who do not show up in midterms will show up this election day.

Add to that this...the fact that republicans are still less likely to turn out in this election.

What I am seeing is polls that I would be real money on...that will drastically underestimate the amount of the Democrat vote.

We shall see though...soon enough.

Best!

Kralmajales said...

Hk Usp,

On the guns issue. Do you really think that the Republican party is going to let you keep your assault rifles in this age of terror? Remember that privacy is out the door now with the Patriot Act reauthorization. They will monitor EVERYONE who buys a gun..as they will your phone calls.

In this age of terror...remember...things will never...ever...be the same.

Watch your guns. It will be the ATF, Homeland Security, etc. looking for it...not Gabby Giffords.

206isCancer.com said...

Kralmajales,

You could be right on your analysis of the turnout for the election, but I still stand by my prediction that turnout this election will not be as heavy as '04 and closer to turnout in ‘02. Plus, many Republican leaning voters will come out to vote for PMA, the "Protect Marriage Arizona" Amendment or Prop 107 to ban gay marriage and to ban all civil unions. Church leaders will be firmly preaching this from the pulpit tomorrow and the Sunday before the election and will not mince words in their exhortations that churchgoers must vote for Prop. 107.

You also said the following after explaining why Democratic favored voters will turn out: "Add to that this...the fact that republicans are still less likely to turn out in this election." There are many who have predicted this, but that is not at all a "fact." Any analysis of voting turnout before an election is always speculative. I also think that something that could depress Democratic voter turnout is the thought that Janet is so far ahead that it won’t be a big deal if her supporters neglect making it out to the polls to cast that vote for her. I personally think that Republicans will turnout in droves, especially in CD8 and especially in the Border counties.

HK USP said...

Kral,

It is sad to say but you have a good point. ATF is more an enemy than friend. But I believe a conservative senator from Idaho joined in on the objections to parts of the patriot act so not all is lost within the party.

I do not agree that I have nothing to fear from Gabby. More like I have something to fear from Gabby and the Republican establishment. Since Graf is clearly an outside the establishment candidate I do not fear that he will sell out gun owners. One thing you can say about Randy is that he is honest about his agenda.

re: Turnout. Any poll that uses data from 2002 or 2004 misses huge growth in the NW area, i.e. Oro Valley, Catalina, and Marana. From my experience walking neighborhoods, this area can be up to 2-1 Republican. Therefore polls based on past elections would miss contacting a lot more Republicans than Democrats from this area. There may be some other factor that counteracts this so I not predicting a win but I am predicting that the polling is flawed, at least for NW Tucson area.

Dogma said...

I so do love my occasional visits to Republican World…

Such a lovely, whimsical place where up is down, down is up, and right is certainly wrong.

cc burro said...

hk usp--What did Gabby do in the legislature re guns?

One question re guns and the government--I think that most people do not want those who have been convicted of committing a violent crime to have guns [when they get out of jail]. The only way I know for this to be done is the instant background check with the FBI database [NCIS?] that I think gun dealers are required to do. However, there is a loophole in the system in that non-gun dealers can sell guns to other individuals without performing this check of the FBI database.

What are your thoughts re this?

Kralmajales said...

206iscancer,

Good points about turnout. I do think I am going to be right on election day (smile), but the point about everyone thinking Janet is going to win (and even Grijalva) might be bad news. Although, the turnout advantage that could happen for Democrats in heavily Republican areas like Mitchell's District, Renzi's and now Kolbe's could spell some doom for Kyl.

I want to address what you said about 107 seperately.

Kralmajales said...

Re: 107 and what 206iscancer said:

"Plus, many Republican leaning voters will come out to vote for PMA, the "Protect Marriage Arizona" Amendment or Prop 107 to ban gay marriage and to ban all civil unions. Church leaders will be firmly preaching this from the pulpit tomorrow and the Sunday before the election and will not mince words in their exhortations that churchgoers must vote for Prop. 107."

You may be right about this and this is the saddest saddest statement (if true) that I can imagine for Christians. Even as some of them will say "love the sinner hate the sin" in response to homosexuals, that is still, still not what Christ preached.

Politics in the pews really disgusts me. On both sides of the fence. A place that is tranquil, where we can think about our lives with regard to God or Christ becomes a place to condemn people and their lifestyles? And a place to rally troops for an election to "stop them"?

I would challenge any good, tolerant, peace-loving Christian, to stand up and question these efforts...ask their purpose...and ask why such a sermon should be given over all of the other wonderful things that Christ taught.

hk usp said...

“What did Gabby do … re guns?” Ask the NRA; they gave her an F. Several Democrat legislators have an A or B rating from the NRA so I do not believe it is a partisan thing.

I think that most people do not want abortion on demand used as birth control or for convenience, minors to get abortions without parental notification, late term abortions, taxpayer funded abortions, etc but Gabby supports all of this in the name of personal choice.

Marco Alatorre said...

Kralmajales,

You asked "Do you really think that the Republican party is going to let you keep your assault rifles in this age of terror?"

My answer is: they already have when they recently let the Clinton Gun Ban sunset. Then they passed a law protecting gun manufacturers from baseless lawsuits.

If the Republicans were after guns in this "age of terror" why didn't they vote to reauthorize the Clinton Gun Ban? Why did they protect gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits?

Gabrielle Giffords, on the other hand, has said that she would vote to reauthorize the Clinton Gun Ban.

That pretty clearly says it all. The Republicans support the right to own firearms, Gabrielle Giffords would vote to ban firearms.

206isCancer.com said...

Kralmajales- (Usually, I write a lot, but I'm sorry that this one is so long)

At the risk of turning this blog into a religious forum, I will respond to something that you said. You referenced the Christ, so I guess that makes religious discussion fair game. By the way, I don’t see how it’s possible for people to completely remove their religious principles and beliefs from their public policy decisions whether they are liberal or conservative. You said that, “Even as some of them will say ‘love the sinner hate the sin’ in response to homosexuals, that is still, still not what Christ preached.”

I would have to totally disagree with this statement. First, let me remind you that you are the one bringing Jesus into politics here by stating what you think Christ preached and how we should then follow it by being tolerant. Is this not an unwanted advance to combine “Church and State?” Of course, Christ was not one to force people to do good things, but as the Jehovah of the Old Testament, Christ did not mince words in his earthly and eternal punishments for these sins, and the Apostle Paul spoke very clearly about what the “Christian” position on the issue of homosexuality was to be. Christ also said “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect.” Yes, Jesus also said that “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone...” But Christ also preached to “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” In other words, Christ showed respect for the rule of law. As such, He would have had it that men make just laws to govern themselves. Yet, laws that are made, such as laws outlawing theft, or murder, or adultery, those are laws that men make based upon their morality or their view of the Commandments of their own God. There is no way to separate morality from most public policy decisions. Maybe we don’t have to consult God in everything, such as which colors of the stop light stand for “Go”, “Stop”, and “Yield.” But the basics of the Social Contract are morality and Judeo-Christian ethics.

Now, on something else that you said: “I would challenge any good, tolerant, peace-loving Christian, to stand up and question these efforts...ask their purpose...and ask why such a sermon should be given over all of the other wonderful things that Christ taught.”

The role of a Church is to teach morality and adherence to whatever principles that one’s God might desire for an individual or group. You use the word “tolerant”, but I do not think that “tolerance” of sin is one of the things that Jesus taught. In making a better society, we try to rid our society of things that are bad for the society based upon our own views on life and morality, often things taught in our churches. The Social Contract is so important, because so many churches teach so many different doctrines which often conflict with other churches. The Social Contract fills the gap and establishes a method to resolve conflicts between different views on morality. There is no way that any two different churches can agree on every single issue, or why would they be separate churches?

When it comes to the Protect Marriage Arizona Amendment, there are many different churches with many differing views. The vast majority of churches are in favor of PMA, but because churches are set up to make people better and the societies that their adherents live and worship in better, churches will exhort their membership to vote in one way or another on PMA based upon their own interpretation of Biblical law or whatever book(s) or person(s) that those churches use as their guide(s).

I would guess that the Pima Interfaith Council, a group of extemely liberal churches is telling leaders from its member churches to tell their membership to vote against Prop. 107. I know that they have become entrenched into politics before, even such things as protecting illegal aliens, which to me seems to be hardly a religious issue. But of course, I already said that “There is no way to separate morality from most public policy decisions.” So, I could be wrong on this. Churches involve themselves in every aspect of public life, and depending on ones interpretation of the issue, we are grateful for their help or we reject it. I haven’t seen Americans United for the Seperation of Church and State argue against churches getting involved in our immigration policy. So, even groups like this seem to have a liberal agenda that they will only fight against churches involving themselves in government matters if they are against their liberal viewpoint.

206isCancer.com said...

Kralmajales-

The Arizona Daily Star made my point very well today.

http://www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/153345

Many liberal churches are fighting against Prop. 107 and Prop. 300. And even some “Conservative” churches are fighting against Prop. 300 and fighting for Prop. 203. So, you can want churches to get out of politics, but you’ll have to ask for ALL churches to get completely out of politics. Even then, it would be impossible for them to stay COMPLETELY out of the public arena.

cc burro said...

HK USP--

I am sure that VERY few women use abortion as "birth control or convenience". If you ever talked to someone who had gotten an abortion, you would know this.

Regarding the polling and change in voter registration in Catalina, Marana, Oro Valley, which is a good portion of LD 26--Since 2004, in LD 26, the number of Democratic registered voters has increased by 2.1% [+650 potential voters], the Republican by 3.4% [+1411], and the Independent by 15.7% [+3644]. The ratio of registered Republicans to Democrats has not changed much since 2004. Independents/No Party is the fastest growing party in LD 26.

sirocco said...

206isacancer said:

"Many liberal churches are fighting against Prop. 107 and Prop. 300. And even some “Conservative” churches are fighting against Prop. 300 and fighting for Prop. 203. So, you can want churches to get out of politics, but you’ll have to ask for ALL churches to get completely out of politics. Even then, it would be impossible for them to stay COMPLETELY out of the public arena."

I agree with this entirely (probably the first time I've said those words after quoting 206) -- I want all churches out of politics, regardless of their leanings.

I don't think they should be handing out literature. I don't think they should be endorsing positions on candidates or propositions. I can see a priest (or equivalent) providing some moral guidance, but only if explicitly asked by a member of the congregation. Such advice about a political matter should NOT be part of the weekly sermon, etc.

Tax those puppies if they violate the rules (and yes, I know my comments above are stricter then the current laws on the matter).

Kralmajales said...

I am very inclined to agree with Sirocco on this one. I would not attend a church that used its pulpit as a means of trying to affect elections. I also wouldn't choose a church that declared my gay and lesbian friends to be "sinners" and that would then go as far to use the "sword of the government" to discriminate against them and their lifestyle.

We can agree to disagree about what the bible tells us about homosexuality or a host of other societal issues and about what is right and what is wrong.

I think they the marriage of gays and lesbians does nothing to harm society. I think that if you feel that way, go for it, but I don't believe your religious views should be foisted upon the rest of us. This is exactly what we claim to be fighting in the middle east. The Taliban and other religious zealots who wish to foist their views and interpretations of an ancient text on modern society.

I see this as absolutely no different. The only solace I have is that most young people feel that gays and lesbians should be able to marry. In a generation, this will be a moot point. Just like the struggles for equality for women and minorities in America.