Thursday, October 19, 2006

Random Polling Stuff

OK here is the latest on polling for the CD-8 race:

Apparently the KUAT poll that Blog for Arizona referenced was actually taken and did show Graf within 6%. The results of this poll were leaked but never released. It is rumored that the producer who leaked the results has been fired. Supposedly KUAT has taken another poll and is sitting on the results once more. That is all beyond bizarre. But I suppose you will need to make your own conclusions.

The Republican party has been polling and has their own numbers, which they haven't called me with :) . Additionally the TAR has their own poll and results as well.

Since both of these groups are partisan, it would make sense that they haven't released their figures. If Graf is significantly behind, that would be a problem. If he is closing, I'm not sure that revealing that would be a good idea either as it would bring the DCCC back into the race, and they are sure to be of more help to Gabby than the NRCC would be to Randy.

Suffice it to say, that the Graf camp knows the numbers and ultimately saw no reason to be aggressive during the first debate. Take that for what it is worth.

Additionally a new Zogby poll should be out just in time for Halloween. It will be interesting who gets tricked and who gets the treat.


Marco Alatorre said...

Well, let's see what happens to the polls when the word gets out that Gabrielle Giffords would vote to ban guns

Gabrielle Giffords is no moderate. She is a liberal, anti-gunner who has stated that she would vote to reauthorize the Clinton Gun Ban, which expired in September 2004.

This ill conceived piece of legislation banned guns based on purely cosmetic features. If a certain gun looks a certain way, then that gun would be banned. At the same time, many guns that were functionally identical to the banned guns remained legal.

And what is the rationale for banning firearms based on mere cosmetic features? The answer lies in the politics of gun control. While it is currently politically impractical to ban all firearms, the foot in the door is to ban those firearms that look "evil". The idea is to tell the public that only "evil" guns are being banned. Then, after the public has become used to the ban of evil guns, you come back for a second pass. You say that many guns have slipped through a "loophole" in the law and these guns that slipped through the loophole are functionally identical to the banned, evil guns and therefore they also should also be banned. Aren't anti-gunners clever!

So, when Gabrielle Giffords says that she would vote to reauthorize the Clinton Gun Ban, she is really admitting that she intends to support a broad attack on all firearms ownership nationwide. Yes, she intends to ban firearms. Yes, she is anti-gun. And yes, she is a liberal pretending to be a moderate.

The Clinton Gun Ban made no sense and finally, even the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has admitted that it had no effect of crime. Yet Gabrielle Giffords has stated that she would vote to reauthorize such a senseless law that serves no purpose other than to advance the cause of gun control.

sirocco said...


Of course, everything is open to interpretation. ... As I believe either you are TC noted, Graf has to be careful about being perceived as "attacking" a woman. Contrarily, Giffords has to avoid being perceived as "passive". So Graf had incentive to be restrained in the first debate, while Giffords had reason to be aggressive.

We'll see how it plays out over the next couple weeks.

I recall the mention of this poll. However, nothing came out, there has been no mention of anyone being fired, and no indication KUAT has a new position open for hire.

Even if the poll data was leaked, there would have been no particular reason not to run the information, especially as it would have been considered quite newsworthy.

It's far more likely the poll never actually occurred than not one but two sets of poll results have been sat on.

I am certainly looking forward to the Zogby poll, as it will have been run after most (or all) of the debates.

Framer said...


The poll was real. The reasons for it not being released or the firing of the producer who leaked it still may be in dispute, but the poll existed and had Graf only down six.

It is possible that it was a flawed poll, but that hasn't stopped anybody else from releasing theirs. The fact that the University was involved may be a factor as well.

Hope that helps.

GOPinsider said...

Just a thought - wouldn't it be crazy if Graf pulls this out somehow - only to get to Washington and be in the minority because Republicans lose enough seats elsewhere?

Anonymous said...

I work at KUAT. We don't do polls. We have not done a poll recently. And, believe it or not, no one has been fired. Yep, that's right. A Republican blog with flawed information. I'm not surprised, but thanks for giving us KUATers a good laugh!

Framer said...

Mr. Anonymous,

So nobody at the U of A is doing polls? Nice Political Science program we got here. I bet every other University in the nation runs polls at election season, but we choose not to, evidently.

So somebody must have made a poll up with results from thin air, and then to get the message out leaked it to that font of radical conservatism Michael Bryan. There's a strategy for you.

I didn't report on the poll at all because I couldn't find any verification. I finally believe I did. I put the tag of "rumor" on the other portions of information I received.

I may even accept that the news organization had nothing to do with with the poll. But I do believe thay had access to one done through the University. Especially since the rumored results were well within the margin of error that the Zogby poll done at close to the same time came up with.

I'll keep on ltrying to get more information however.

Anonymous said...

First of all, it's Ms. Anonymous! And second, the person who is responsible for this blog should correct it on the main page for those who don't check the comments. Make a statement, something like "I stand corrected. KUAT did not take any polls this election season."

The reason I'm responding is your comment to Sirocco:

"The poll was real. The reasons for it not being released or the firing of the producer who leaked it still may be in dispute, but the poll existed and had Graf only down six."

KUAT Communications Group had no involvement. And there has not been any alleged firing. Nope. None. Like everyone who had jobs here yesterday STILL have their jobs today. There may be, however, several student production openings available.

sirocco said...


I confess I don't recall ever seeing or hearing about KUAT doing a political poll (debates yes). Memory can, of course, be wrong, but a good bit of time running searches for various things such as "KUAT AZ poll" and other such combinations draws a blank.

Someone feel free to prove me wrong ... it shouldn't be too hard to do.

I find it far more likely this rumor could spring from your posited scenario of some type of "practice" poll put together by, say, a class in the Social Sciences Dept. It would be a very good class project to come up with your question set, etc. Such a scenario would easily explain why there have been no results made public, etc.

However, such a scenario would also render the poll results largely meaningless, as the questions are likely to be poor, the sample sizes small and not properly representative, etc. Such a poll would have less credibility than that Emily's List poll (I think it was EL) which porported Giffords was ahead by 20+ points.

pinkiris said...

Just yesterday Limbaugh talked about the polls (8) done recently and they all admitted to a representation that was from 4 to 11 points Democrat above and beyond the actual representation of voters. This explains why the polls never predict the actual outcomes of elections. Taking a 'moderate'(such a well-loved word) stance, that would put Graf dead even.

sirocco said...


Any legitimate polling firm will either:

a. make sure it gets representitive figures or,

b. Weight the figures to be representative.

Further, they aren't going to admit to professional incompetence (or malfeasance) on the Rush Limbaugh show.

Graf is tied only in his happy dreamland place.

Kralmajales said...

Its all total BS. More total crappo to try to hang liberalism on the university, create unfounded conspiracy, and to create the illusion that Randy Graf is anything but what he is...

Which is a loser his party won't even back, a crank who hangs out with biggots, and a candidate who has no money and must take it from the likes of the Sue Walden's and Minute-people.

This guy is DONE...and all the false rumors, consipiracies, and lies won't bring him back.

Again...we should be talking about Kyl and Pederson.

Anonymous said...

I'd also like to add that there's a big difference between KUAT doing a poll (which they claim they haven't done) and the U of A doing a poll. KUAT is a part of the U of A, but there's a lot more to the university than just the station.

Anonymous said...

Is it safe to say that kramfrijolies is a supporter?

Kralmajales said...

Nope...just smart enough to know that enforcement is probably more expensive than the costs of the labor that is here. That a wall will be enormously expensive to build (1.2 billion is probably a low estimate) and that you, me, and my grandkids will probably be paying for IT instead of roads, schools, etc.

The problem is not a knee jerk issue. You can't blame our problems on crime, education, health care, and even traffic accidents on the illegals. Republicans like that though. It means they can pretend to address these problems by spending money on defense, military, and other public works programs like walls instead of addressing the real problems.

Your own party will never let the ideas of Randy and Tom Tancredo win. Why? Because they are greedy and want the labor. Jon Kyl, did squat about the border...and he will continue to do just that. His corporate cronies won't let him...and you all will be left fuming and holding the bag.

Bruce P. Murchison said...


"Bigot"? "Crank"? "Loser"? Real nice. I thought these blogs were for intelligent (or not so intelligent) discussions. I may disagree with Liberals, but I don't go around labeling them or calling them names. I happen to be a Staunch Conservatibe, yet have many "Liberals" supporting my race. Perhaps it is because I treat them with respect even though we disagree with each other on some issues. You may want to try some civility. It works.