“To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable.” -Barry Goldwater
I proudly support Gabrielle Giffords. I could continue knocking on Randy Graf, but to what end. She is going to be a fantastic congresswoman as she was as a state legislator. She will be an excellent representative for this district.If you are a Republican reading this, she is a moderate. She is not an extreme ideologue. She will work with business in Southern Arizona. She is reasonable.At a time when Republican ideologues have run this country into the ground. Morally, economically, and globally, we have to have a change.There are many fine moderate Republicans that I know who are voting for Giffords. They want a reasonable Congresswoman. They also want to send a message to the right-wing of your party and they want to take their party back.Those of you who supported Huffman, I know that you cannot possibly agree with Randy Graf on much of anything. You also know that you can work with Giffords.Vote Giffords...send that message.
The Reuters poll must include leaners. The most noteworthy element isn't the margin (which has been steady throughout), but that it has Giffords above 50%
Hi Sirocco:I had no doubt in the world that Giffords would end up over 50. In the end, what will happen is the undecideds will break one way or another or not turn out at all. The polls will also not measure likely midterm voters very well this time and will underestimate (I think dramatically) the turnout against Republicans.I say "AGAINST" purposely. The support for Giffords is already strong and is already showing up in polls as a win. Graf support is also very solid (and smaller). Those who give the BIG edge here at the end will be those voting AGAINST republicans.
Ouch! No comment.
I'll try and think of some spin later after licking my wounds. But I must say that it's not over until it's over, and the fat lady still hasn't sang.
206,If the fat lady can hack into the Diebold machines, you just might win.
Since the Recorder's office is headed by a Democrat and the most likely fraud would be mail-in ballot process, any fraud would help the Democrats not the Republicans.This thing is over.
Now can we talk about Kyl and Pederson?Here is my thought. Pederson is surging, but is it too late? What would Pederson need to do to win?a) Get good turnout in Grijalva and Pastor's districts. Democrat strongholds facing limited to no opposition. If turnout is not high among Demos here, then Kyl looks good.b) BUT, races like Giffords, Mitchell, and even Renzi is spurring some heavy turnout among Dems in Republican drawn districts. Big wins by Giffords in a Republican district COULD have an effect on Kyl's vote. As could the Simon and Mitchell races.c) Just the perfect storm folks. Polls are undoubtably underestimating turnout in this midterm, which may be like no other. Lots of anger among Dems to vote dem. Lots of anger among independents who may not normally show up in a midterm, and even anger among Republicans who might sit this one out.Thoughts everyone...I am curious. What does Kyl need to do to win? What about Pederson?
Kral,Pederson is not surging. In the WSJ / Zogby poll released on October 19 he was down by 6.2%. Twelve days later in the same WSJ/ Zogby poll Pederson was down 7.4%. That is not surging.And your side is making fun of how Graf supporters are trying to spin the polls.
Roger,I just don't see it ... Pedersen really hasn't shown any consistent traction. Everytime the polls show him making up ground, the next poll shows him falling back.I think the race will be "close", but only in a relative sense. I expect Kyl to win by 6-8 points.
So this is what the democratic opponenets were complaining about in the primary, huh?sweet dealSeems Giffords has fixed it so our tax dollars go directly into her pockets to the tune of millions.Yes, that is who I want representing me.Hook the crook!I would rather have an honest republican who I don't agree with on all the issues than a lying, corrupt, law-breaking Democrat who just tells me what I want to hear.Man, Democrats are so stupid. They complain about Bush then elect Democrats 10 times worse. Good going team.
Apparently you haven't seen today's Daily Star, which completely and thoroughly shredded the accuracy of Graf's ad, stating it was "false" and that there was no sweetheart deal, no environmental contamination, Gabrielle Giffords was not even a party to the lease and in fact the Giffordses didn't even want to lease this land to the city.http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/153876With these false, slimy, mudslingling attacks of a desperate candidate, Randy Graf has become everything that was despised about Steve Huffman. Graf at least had a reputation for being a straight-shooter before this, but he sacrificed this in his desperation. No wonder he has been consistently unable to pull more than 40% of the vote in seven different polls.Graf will be on the John C. Scott show today at 4:30. We'll see how he defends his lies.
Whoa whoa whoa...not being an apologist for Mr. Pederson here. Surging from double digit to single digit, but I didn't say he would win. Still, look at my thoughts above again and give me your opinions.A big big night be Democrats among independents and the not normal midterm voter changes things massively. They are NOT captured in these polls often. Again, I am not spinning anything here, but I ask again. Does a big win by Giffords in Republican district improve Pederson's chances? In the Mitchell-Hayworth Race? The Renzi race. These, in the past, have not been competitive races and Demos did not turn out in large numbers, but they will this time...AND there will be independents voting..."anyone but Republican."What I see that may kill Pederson DESPITE these trends are twofold:1) Low turnout in Democratic strongholds because the Gov. and Grijalva and Pastor are shoe-ins.2) Just because people vote for Giffords doesn't mean they will also vote for Pederson.
I am supposed to believe the Star, which has been backing Giffords for years, over my own expertise on this issue and the documents I have before me?Poor Giffords.Always the victim...when someone calls her out on her corruption that is.My tax dollars pay her living and will again for her two years in Congress. Nice. The woman has not worked a real job in her life.Corrupt, corrupt, corrupt.
Just like Pederson never changed his company name before filing bankruptcy, hid it from creditors and then lied on 5 filings years later. Sure. I believe that one. Get a few people to come out on your behalf and suddenly you are innocent.Bush is innocent too. Look at all the people who have come out on his behalf.You Democrats are as nuts as the far right wingers. And more corrupt.
By the way, I read the Star article and they did not refute the ad. They gave Gabby and friends version and Graf and Co version. I not only have the documents myself, but know some of the players involved. It was, in fact, a sweetheart deal.From the Star:"Hein, who wasn't with the city in 2000, said he doesn't know why the city leased the property instead of buying it. The two officials who were primary players in the deal, Assistant City Manager Karen Thoreson and then-Real Estate Manager John Updike, are no longer with the city."So no one can seem to explain why they are leasing and the outrageous terms of the lease.Oh yes, and according to Giffords' campaign manager, she isn't profitting even though she has it in trust and will rake in $13 million. Where can I sign up to "not profit" $13 million?
I can easily explain that question.The city wanted to buy. Mr. Giffords was uninterested in selling. The city then came back with a lease offer, which was negotiated.That's really pretty simple and straight-forward.Further, Giffords is not making a penny on the lease. Her parents are, and when they both pass away it's likely she will inherit some or all of it. Not guaranteed though -- the money could be lost somehow (spent, bad deals, whatever), Gabby could be unfortunate and die first, or the parents might opt to leave the money elsewhere as part of their will.So she's not profitting. She may profit in the future, but right now she is not.Not as hard to understand as you seem to want to make it.
Nicely said Sirroco...See there is no need for any of this. Randy is behind by 10-15%. Also, most Republicans would find this kind of deal to be just fine and dandy. They do it ALLLLLL the time! Who is this ad aimed at? Independents? Undecideds? Are republicans to be offended by THIS when they seem to be fine with the Abramoff connections and dirty land dealings and secret land deals.Last, I am from a nice old chemical town. Most of the republican backed companies managed to pack up and move leaving superfund sites for the EPA to clean up.If this were true, it should engender a great deal of respect and even republican votes, don't you think?
Post a Comment