Framer's Concession

So this is what it feels like to have been a Democrat for the last 6 years.

It appears that much of the polling was more accurate than it has been in the past. Just because something was true two years ago, does not make it true today. That is a lesson that needs to be learned.

Congratulations to Representative Giffords for running a strong, disciplined campaign. Just for the record, I believe that she would have crushed Huffman by a larger percentage had he been the nominee as she coopted much of his perceived strengths, and would have embarrassed him during the debates.

And congratulations to Randy Graf for running a good campaign despite the obstacles placed in front of him, both from without and within. It is a shame that he couldn't have hooked up with RT a little earlier.

Republicans have a lot of lessons to learn from this, and I want to focus on the local party for just a minute.

There are a lot of Republicans ready to draw their long knives and go after a few scalps at this point. That would be exactly the wrong thing to do. Granted, there are a few scalps that need to be taken, but that can be done without leaving too many scars.

If we need a scapegoat, I offer Nathan Sproul. As an unelected party member, there wouldn't be too many people invested in his success. His nastiness and ill-advised marriage amendment (it was way too restrictive) had no small contribution to what took place tonight. This is also reflected in his effort to end clean elections Quite frankly, he is just not what we need as the face and right hand of our party. He may not be the person most responsible for what happened, but somebody needs to be sacrificed, and he is more than expendable and was not elected.

After burning him in effigy, we should issue a mass pardon to everyone else, including Jim Click and Steve Huffman. This will be hard, but it is necessary. Arizona is slipping away so we must play smarter, harder, and do a better job with our home work. We need ALL of our players on the field.

The next thing we need to do is throw away the Rove playbook. As area Republicans, we need to focus on around 10 items that ALL of us agree on. In many cases, these will not be the most important items to us, but we should be able to compromise within the party in such a way as these ten items will look good to everybody. The upside is that these ten items will resonate. If they look good to ALL Republicans, they will also look good to a majority of voters. We cannot focus on the wedge issues that have been overused for the past three elections. We have either mostly won those battles, or they are unwinnable at this point.

Once we have those ten issues, sell out entirely to them. Pick candidates who can sell them, put them on ballot initiatives where applicable, give people a choice and a reason to vote FOR us rather than against our opponent. If someone can win on these issues, we should not apply a litmus test outside of these issues.

We can win on down the ticket if we do this. It may not be everything we want right away, but after each issue is solved, we can add another, and if the idea is presented convincingly within the party, it will win out. We need to be about ideas again, and not labels. The drubbing we took was an embarrassment and we are all responsible, RINOs and Ultra-Conservatives alike.

We do not have time to waste on further squabbling. Candidates need to be approached in the next eight months, so the game plan has to be put in place before then. This is not a time for bitterness and castigation. It is a time for learning, for planning, and for taking back more than we lost.

Democrats are now going to bear the burden of expectations. We can choose to carp at them and enjoy their every misfortune, or we can out work them and crush them with a positive, resounding message. If we do this there is no reason we should lose. With all graciousness to my Democratic friends, there is not a Mo Udall among them.

Will post more later as we wrap this blog up and return to my family.

Thanks for reading.

Infamous Exit Polls

Remember how brutal and slanted the exit polls were toward Democrats last year?

According to the Huffington Post Kyl is up by 4 in those same polls this time around.

If this polling is as Democrat-biased as last time, Kyl and the down ticket should be rolling.

GOTV effort and Predictions

Sorry about the lack of posts. I believe that most of the people reading have already decided, so I have been out working among our future readers :)

Just to bring us up to date, tomorrow is obviously the election. At this point I am ready to concede the polls to the Democrats. Congratulations to Democrats on their fourth such victory in a row. It is perfectly evident that Republicans are just not built to compete in this arena and changes will have to be made in order to show well in future polls.

The actual election is, as always, a different matter, and the Republicans seem to play this game a little better.

Here is my take on the national scene:

1. Any race where the polling is within one or two points in the polling will go to the Republicans at a near 80% clip. This, however, will not apply to races in New Jersey or Maryland.

2. Corker beats Ford, however, this will not be called right away.

3. Allen beats Webb. This will not be as close as many are expecting.

4. Republicans do not pick up either New Jersey or Maryland. We are dreaming that we have a chance there.

5. In an upset special, Burns retains his seat. This has been marked as a Democrat win for some time now. I know Montana pretty well, and know that Tester is not an easy sell for the overall populace. Someday the influx of Californians may turn Montana completely blue, but I do not believe that time is here quite yet.

6. Chafee defeats Whitehouse. Behold the awesome power of the GOP GOTV. Republicans are excited right up to the point where Chafee actually starts voting again.

7. Santorum loses by 6%

8. Talent wins, although there will be more shenanigans in St. Louis.

9. Brown wins, Ohio suffers buyers remorse soon after.

10. Republicans retain both the Foley and the Delay seats, due mainly to their amazing ability to research and follow directions.

11. Republicans lose 16 seats, costing them the House by the slimmest of margins. 40% chance that one or more Democrats are lured across the aisle with promises of chairmanships.

12. The Graf race is closer than many expect. Even if he does not win, the result will be close enough that Matt Salmon will be in hot water for actively supporting Huffman and his negative campaigning.

13. Hayworth and Kyl win going away.

14. None of the positive Republican developments will be a result of the intervention of Karl Rove.

15. Liberal Democrats will find that not all Democrats running for the house are only pretending to be moderates. Many of them actually will be moderates and vote in ways sure to infuriate liberals.

16. Either John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, or Mitt Romney will defeat Hillary Clinton in 2008 with Coattails.

Fire away, and do not forget to vote.

Breaking my own Rules

I do try to stick to news regarding this particular race, but I just need to leave character for one moment.

John Kerry is a buffoon.

That is all.

Sorry for my Absence

I apologize for not being around for a while. I had two posts last week that blogger.com ate during their maintenence period, including my debate review that I spent quite a bit of time authoring. GRRR. After that I was quite sick (flu bug), but I am finally back.

Let me begin with the short version of my observations on the previous candidate debate:

The big thing that I noticed is that Gabby Giffords is a lightweight and would accomplish little other than cast a vote for Pelosi as Speaker if elected to Congress. Here is my reasoning to back that up:

At the beginning of the debate, in her opening statement (or close to it) she placed her cards on the table. She brought up her shining example of non-partisan compromise. It was a bill that she said benefited Holocaust survivors and their families. This is classic Giffords. The Holocaust was a terrible event, probably one of the most evil acts to occur in all of history. However, this event has absolutely nothing to do with Arizona some sixty years later, or at least to the extent that involves legislation. Is there anybody in Arizona responsible for this action, or did not have a proper understanding of the depths of horrors that occurred? At what point did Giffords need to step in and take ownership of the State's contrition? How did this bill benefit her constituents and the problems they face now? Where does she rate this in accordance with the skyrocketing property crime, health insurance issues, or the struggles that we are having in education? The truth is that this was meant to be a "easy" bill, free of controversy and therefore tough leadership. Most, if not all of the bills that originate with Giffords fall into this category.

She then explained how she was instrumental in forming a "Coalition for Children" shortly after forming the "Coalition for snuggly puppies" but before the "Coalition for puffy Unicorn stickers." Her grand accomplishment for the coalition was pushing for all-day Daycare, I mean Kindergarten, effectively diluting by half the teacher to student ratio during the time when students are first adjusting to the school system. The victory for children was debatable, but it certainly was a victory for daycare bills. Gabby was a little fuzzy about her actual sponsorship of this bill, but I will give her the benefit of the doubt.

My impression of Giffords is currently short on substance, long on anecdotes, generalizations, and "feel-goodiness". I have yet to see a truly courageous stance on any issue of any substance where she actually led. I am open for examples, but so far I haven't seen any or been given any reason to believe that she would stand up for any issues not pre-approved by her party, or Ms. Pelosi. If any commentors wish to educate me, I am open to persuasion.

I am not even going to say much about her belief that raising the minimum age on Social Security does not qualify as a benefit cut or that Global Warming (and by association Republican policy) is directly responsible for the eight year drought we have been experiencing in the Sonoran Desert. I will choose to believe she would take those back if given a chance.

That being said, I am not too pleased that the new smear site has linked us and I ask them to take it down. My part of the party is better than that. We will run on ideas and leave sensationalist "Gotchas" to the other side. I was hard on Giffords, but this was based on her record and policy which is always open for examination and should be open to debate. Gifford's weaknesses lie in her lack of leadership, her avoidance of anything controversial, and her ties to interests that could compromise her ability to independently represent this district. I decry the personal attacks that have been made such a part of this campaign no matter where they come from.

We have a choice, and it should not be determined by whisperings of indiscretion, feigned outrage, breathless and baseless accusations, and mean-spiritedness. A lot of us need to grow up. If each one of us does not learn to be civil, even with Americans that diametrically oppose us, then what is the point of politics other than to prosecute and slime one another. If your ideas can't compete, clear the field and let someone else play. If you want to cheerlead rather than debate ideas, pick a football team.

I do have to say that for the most part however, the comments section of this site has been a classier corner of the blogosphere, and would like to thank all those involved.

Forum Post part 1

There will be more to come, but I will need to be brief this evening due to time constraints.

It was a very good debate, and definitely not a snoozer. However, to start the first installment from a different angle I want to focus on the candidate who is almost considered an afterthought, Davis Nolan.

David Nolan is a Libertarian, and there is a reason that people don't ultimately vote for Libertarians. The Libertarian platform is such that anyone can find something they like about it, in some cases a LOT they like about it, but there is always that part just waiting to poke you in the eye with a fork. Davis Nolan is a great representative for the party that he founded.

Go to his website linked on the side of the page. It is an attractive, informational website that lays out his platform. Stay a little to long however, and David's voice will start up and scare the living daylights out of you, (well, maybe not now that I warned you). It can take an other wise normal, pleasant experience and leave a different impression as you try to find the toolbar to make it stop.

Such is David's performance at the debates. There are moments that he threatens to steal the show, but then will jar the audience back to reality with his delivery and choice of examples. Tonight he was like that, telling Democrats that global warming was comparable to the Easter Bunny, and Republicans that Marijuana has never been responsible for one death in this country, even while delighting all at times with his frank, unique perspective.

So, since it apparent that their platform will keep them from ever being elected, I offer a humble proposition. We round up all of the Libertarian candidates and bar them from running for office. Instead, we nab them several months before each election and impress them into service as political reporters. Let them ask the questions and write the mainstream articles concerning the candidates of both parties. I guarantee that puff pieces would disappear, and we would actually be looking at issues rather than suspect polling which Libertarians have learned to ignore on reflex. That would provide a far greater service than what we have now, because political reporting is absolutely insipid at this point, and free up the mikes for the candidates who have a chance to win, because we cannot get enough "candidate x hates children and old people."

However, since I suspect that the country is too backbone impaired to implement this glorious plan, we will have to settle for letting them participate in the debates even as they alternately induce applause and eye-rolls.

More soon.

A little News. . .

It's been pretty quiet on the CD-8 front. Both camps look like they have gone into working mode, which is quite refreshing in comparison with the candidate blathering which is occurring in other races.

There are the two debates scheduled for today. One was held earlier at the El-Con Mall. Unfortunately, it occurred during business hours so I was not able to attend. The other is to be held this evening in Sierra Vista starting right now. For Cox subscribers, it will be televised on channel seven, channel 74 on Comcast.

Tomorrow the debate will be televised live on KVOI starting at 7:30.

On Friday, Randy Graf is having a fundraiser with congressmen Trent Franks and Duncan Hunter. On Halloween, Dennis Hastert will be in town for a fundraiser and luncheon.

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.

A little more financials:

According to a new Citizen Article the Graf campaign claims to have raised another $200,000 since the reporting period.

Additionally the Minuteman PAC has announced that they will spend up to an additional $250,000 in advertising.

No public word form the Giffords campaign on what they have raised since the reporting period.

FEC funding

Sorry about the lag in posting. I've been out doing my part for GOTV.

As Sonoran alliance has already posted, and I hate it when those guys scoop us, the FEC reports show that the expected largesse of Giffords fundraising isn't what many thought.

Gabby has about a $100,000 lead in cash on hand. That is not near the advantage she was hoping to have at this point. However, the bigger question is "where has she blown almost a million dollars?"

Obviously, Gabby has had a strong television presence, and that has been a large benefit to her. However, she has been decidedly beat by the content and quality of the Graf mailers. It is evident that Graf learned from the Huffman contest as this is where Huffman made the biggest impact with his money. It is far more cost effective than television advertising and much more detailed.

The news that I hear also confirms that the early balloting is not trending too much in Gabby's favor, so I do not believe a large portion of her money has went there.

A look at her expenditures seems to show that most of it went to these guys. Who better to tell Gabby what those in CD-8 are looking for in leadership than a firm from Philadelphia.

Had that money been used to "flood the zone" with mailers and further advertising, I believe that Graf would be looking at a larger hill to climb. It would also have been nice to keep that money in the local economy. Do you think GMMB is a union shop?

Expect Michael from Blog for Arizona to break it down with further financial followup. He's the best there is locally for this, even if he is a bit confused with his politics. :)

The McCain Endorsement

Yep, that is the news I was hearing about.

This is likely to be minimized by my friends and brethren on the left, but this is the best possible development that could have happened to Graf this week short of Gabby getting caught sacrificing puppies to the Harvest Moon (and if I were the state Democratic Party I would point out that we have no evidence to suggest that she hasn't been doing this for years.)

There is no more respected and popular politician in power in Arizona than John McCain. Love him or hate him, you better respect him. He brings tons of independent and dare I say "squishy Democrat" appeal. The beauty of his endorsement is the single group of voters who are the most likely to discount McCain are already solidly behind Graf, and aren't going anywhere.

It also blunts and almost erases any sting from Kolbe's refusal to endorse Graf. After all, McCain and Graf are supposedly polar opposites on what many would consider their signature issues at this point, yet McCain is saying that everything else matters more. Kolbe could never single out what it was about Graf that made him unsupportable. Again, this endorsement highlights Kolbe's pettiness and makes him irrelevant.

This gives Graf supporters a response to those Republicans and Independents who have been led to believe that Graf is too extreme, but are leary of voting for a Democrat. There are more than enough of these voters to win the election for Graf, and nearly all of them are McCain supporters.

Finally, it is a good move for McCain. The people lining up behind Graf are the same people who would be most likely to fight a McCain presidential run. It would be very good for McCain to be able to point out who was there to help Randy Graf and who was not when the chips were down. If Graf were to win, this example would be valid nationally, especially if it were to save the House from being turned over to Democrats.

Now it would be icing on the cake to get some type of recant from Jim Click and Steve Huffman to go along with this endorsement. Especially if it were to take place before the debates.

Battlestar Galactica Update

That had to be the most depressing two hours of television I have seen in a while (at least since the AU-LSU game). I guess we will have to wait until next week for some good news.

From, the rumors that I am hearing, however, Randy Graf will not need to wait near that long.

Stay tuned. . .

We try to stick to what we know. . .

However,

If the last point of this post is true, we are likely to see those wacky but lovable characters from the NRCC back in Tucson.

That tip panning out would be the second best thing to happen tomorrow after the Season Premiere of Battlestar Galactica.

Update- Sources confirm that this poll is legit. It is evidently a Kenski poll with a margin of error of 4-5%. I will still want to see the internals. I hear that they oversampled women. :)

Seriously, congratulations to Mr. Drake. I hope that this will cause people to sit up and take notice. He deserves more support from the party and he better get it after this.



We now return to our previously scheduled congressional district. . .

Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce backs Graf

Not sure if this was the news TC was referring to earlier, but if not, it is turning out to be a very good couple of days for Randy Graf.

The Phoenix Business Journal has all of the details.

On the subject of Ducking. . .

Much has been made today of Graf's not appearing for the Arizona Republic editorial Tribunal. Giffords has been skipping other opportunities:

The Phoenix Diocese developed a voter guide for the upcoming election. Giffords did not answer the survey, but Graf did. Here are his responses and responses from the Giffords campaign headquarters:

1. Allow tuition tax credits, vouchers, etc. Randy supports, Gabby does not.

2. Prohibit human cloning. Randy supports, Gabby office not sure, but said she supports use of embryonic stem cells.

3. Legalize physician-assisted suicide. Gabby supports, Randy does not.

4. Prevent welfare recipients from receiving extra funds for conceiving a baby as a welfare recipient. Randy supports, Gabby office says she most likely does not.

5. Prohibit government agencies from accepting matricular consular cards (loose Mexico-issued ID cards for use in the U.S.). Randy supports, Gabby office not sure-maybe opposes.

6. Constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage. Randy supports, Gabby does not.

7. Require informed consent and information prior to abortion. Randy supports, Gabby does not.

8. Maintain statewide public defender office for criminals facing death penalty. Randy supports, Gabby office not sure.

9. Make illegal presence in the U.S. a felony. Gabby does not support, Randy does not support.

10. Mandate health care providers provide morning after pills. Gabby office believes she supports, Randy does not.

11. Exempt non-profit religious organizations from contraceptive mandates. Randy supports, Gabby office not sure.

12. Simplify tax credits so non-itemizing tax filers can deduct charitable contributions. Randy supports, Gabby office believes she supports.

I bet that there is more to learn here than will ever come out in an Arizona Republic editorial, but that is just a hunch.

Finally, a stated methodology.

That poll was indeed a Zogby poll, and here is the methodology:

These are telephone surveys of [likely voters] conducted by Zogby International. There were approximately [15] questions asked. Samples are randomly drawn from purchased telephone voter lists. Zogby International surveys employ sampling strategies in which selection probabilities are proportional to population size within area codes and exchanges within those area codes. Up to six calls are made to reach a sampled phone number. Cooperation rates are calculated using one of AAPORÂ’s approved methodologies[1] and are comparable to other professional public-opinion surveys conducted using similar sampling strategies.[2] Weighting by [party, age, race, gender] is used to adjust for non-response. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.

The poll was also made up of 500 respondents as shown elsewhere in the article.

Either Kenski or Zogby are way out of whack at this point as there is an 8 point difference between the two. One has released their internals, and the other. . .

Of course I do not believe that the local polls were fixed, I believed that the random sampling to be a problem with the local organizations limited funding. Do you think that either of the local polls were able to make six calls to a sampled number? Also notice that weighting was done by party, age , race, and gender. Look at the Governor race poll numbers for the discrepancy between local and national polls as well.

All that being said, this is a tremendous deal to the race. Gifford's biggest strength was her inevitability. That is now gone. If local Republicans start believing that their vote for Graf is the only thing that can stave off a Pelosi Chairmanship, they will start coming home, especially now that Graf appears to be closing. A bigger problem for Giffords is what do you attack Graf with that he hasn't already seen and overcome? Giffords on the other hand, is still riding pretty high on an unsullied image. What happens when people start asking for specifics on what she has done to secure the border and lower taxes? I have looked at her record, there just isn't much there to support this, and definitely less that she sponsored or was the driving force behind.

The final good news is that we actually have a race, so as bloggers both to the right and left, this is a good thing.

Effective use of money

If there was any question over the strategery of both the Republican and Democratic congressional committees, my wife was watching the news yesterday around noon and saw that DCCC ad.

You know the one where they attack Steve Huffman's record.

Not a big fan of Steve at this point, but that is just mean.

It also demonstrates the careful thought and planning of the national parties, unless they think that it is important to stop Huffman from his Presidential bid in 2008.

New Poll Lows

Now, apparently, people can just make up poll numbers from thin air and pass them off.

A New York Times story claims an Emily's list representative that says that Giffords has more than a twenty point lead on Graf.

I searched their site and Giffords site for any mention of this "poll" but couldn't find anything. Tedski seems to have got a release of the poll. But I would assume that he is on the mailing list.

If you cannot even place the actual results of the poll in the public domain, I am sure that the internals aren't going to be forthcoming. I can only assume that everyone involved is aware that this is a cartoon version of a poll. However, if you knew the poll was a lie, why would you release it?

Maybe so you can blame the actual election results on Diebold at a later date :)

Poll Magic

As I have stated in the past, the art of polling has fallen into the same disrepute as statistics. And I have some bones to pick with the two polls that have been released recently.

#1. If you do not release your methodology, it is hard to take your poll seriously. There is absolutely no reason to do this other than trying to hide something. If you are trying to hide something, there has to be bias in your poll. It is as simple as that. If your job as a pollster is to ferret out what is happening in the electorate from an objective sample, you will want to release your methodology to stamp your reliability. Neither of these polls have done that.

Both third party polls taken during the primaries DID do this.

#2. Obviously the Greenburgh-Quinlin-Rosner poll was sloppy and can almost be tossed aside in terms of value. I would bet a dozen Krispy Cremes (and those are hard to get now) that this poll by far oversampled Democrats. We do not know why this poll was commissioned, or what feedback was being targeted by the Giffords campaign that led to these results. It could have been Pima County residents for all we know. Again without the methodology, the results are almost as useful as an online poll.

Also, look at the favorablility ratings for Graf. 82% of respondents know who he is, only 32% think favorably of him, and yet 35% will vote for him? Who are these people that have no idea who Graf is, or actually have an unfavorable opinion of Graf, but will vote for him anyway? Also notice that there are 11% of respondents who know Randy Graf but have no opinion on him. This seems very unlikely. It appears to me that people were being pushed to answer certain questions, perhaps not in a specific way, but nevertheless it diminishes the sampling credibility of the poll. An "I don't know" is perfectly valid as a choice.

And finally, anyone looking at this poll with an analytical bone in their body would immediately know that Gabby is not 19 points up. That was just silly.

#3- I believe the Star poll to be more sound fundamentally, but definitely not beyond question. Again, no breakdown is listed. What I can tell you right off the bat is that women were oversampled in comparison with men. It is also telling that in the Star poll released during the primaries, they DID give the breakdown and defined "likely voter."

Here is the thing that also makes me question the poll. If you buy that 45.8% of the voters view that Border control is the number 1 issue for this race, and that Gabby beats Graf on this issue, that means that Graf has to be beating Gabby on other issues such as the war and health care in order to make the numbers stand up. This is very counter to the conventional wisdom going both directions which could happen, but is unlikely. I also do not buy that Gabby is outdistancing Randy in the outlying counties, unless the sample size of these counties is statistically insignificant (which would explain a lot.)

The over sampling of women and the probable bad sampling of the outlying counties would suggest to me a rushed, inexact poll that the Star knew was flawed, but released anyway minus the internals. "600 likely voters" is probably the truth, but you also need to account for party registration, location, et al. I doubt that this was done.

So while this poll is certainly better than the Giffords poll, it does not, nor cannot tell the entire story.

I would argue that the last valid, verifiable, accurate poll that was taken was the Star poll just before the primary. And that poll is getting moldy.

I am sure that there are others who disagree. But take notice that whenever the poll methodology tightens up, so does Gifford's lead.

Money, Money, Money

Interesting that many think that the withdrawal of the DCCC from funding an advertising blitz is an indication of "having the race in the bag."

The truth is that things aren't going as well in the House elections as Democrats had hoped and the money is needed elsewhere at this point in the race, especially in New York where the GOP is holding strong in 4 of the 5 districts the Democrats had counted on going blue. I believe that the Republican and Democratic Congressional PACs are just about equal in terms of fundraising, so the NRCC moving its money to New York, for instance, would be a huge problem for the DCCC if left unanswered. Especially since there five competitive races in New York and only two (if one is generous)in Arizona.

All that said, this is a tremendous advantage for Graf as The NRCC was never really going to donate any more than it could get away with after their failed primary incursion. This is further mitigated by the fact that Graf will get a lot of help from non-Party PACs. I would argue that his advantage here is far greater than Giffords.

The last tidbit is that the Graf Campaign has picked over the festering, rotted carcass of the Huffman Campaign and tapped fundraiser Julee Dawson. It could easily be argued that she is the only member of that group that still has any business being in politics. Huffman certainly had no problems fundraising, and I doubt it was due to his glittering personality.

The word is that Team Graff has set some very ambitious goals for her, and she is performing admirably. Between the new Campaign Manager, Gregg, and Dawson, I believe that Graf's former weakness at fundraising has been overcome.

The coming weeks should be interesting, although I do not believe that we have seen the last of either party committee.

I'll talk about those "polls" in just a bit.

Too Little, Too Late

The Tucson Citizen must have had a good spate of cancellations based on the most recent editorial.

Everything they recount is true. The state Democratic party and the DCCC have acted reprehensibly, however the racist meme was started by one of their own, and he seems to escape mention.

Of course one wouldn't expect an apology from the Democratic party, but the Citizen should offer one to Graf for the Smith slime piece. This "makeup" article is far from that.

Perhaps the best thing for this race would be for both national and state parties to leave this race altogether alone. The state party is certainly doing Giffords no favors at this point.

Who is the Bigot?

I haven't seen a lot published about this article by Jeff Smith in the Citizen. I guess I will go ahead and discuss it.

The one thing I will have to give Mr. Smith is that he had enough guts to publish his phone number with the article. So I called him.

I have never met Mr. Smith before, so I wasn't certain what to expect. I basically started the conversation by pointing out that this was the most vile, vapid, un- researched, lazy article or opinion piece that I had ever seen published in a "real" newspaper. He went on to tell me that this was an opinion piece and was separate from the news reporting that the Citizen does. He then asked if I was a Graf supporter.

I told him that I was a blogger, and very interested in fair and accurate reporting which there was none of in this article. He actually sneered at me (as much as you can on the phone) and told me that he has never read, nor will he ever read a blog. He explained that if me or anyone else had a disagreement with his piece we could submit a letter to the editor (Once upon a time, someone could actually buy ad space to respond and go around the editor, but that would now violate federal law. Thank you John McCain.)

I asked him if he knew Randy Graf, and he told me that he had met him once. I then asked him if Randy Graf was a racist. He said "yes" without any hesitation or hedging. I then asked him what Randy had ever said or did that would make one think that he was a racist. He told me that Randy was more careful than that, but he could just tell by the way he carried himself that he was a racist. So, no, he had no proof other than his ability to see a man's character by his own all-seeing psychic ability.

He then confided that he has made it his current life's mission to make sure that Graf is never elected.

So there you have it. An article totally devoid of facts, specifics, or fairness as an attempt to paint Graf as a racist, which the author admits that there is no real proof other than the author's belief that he "feels it in his soul."

I asked him if he felt that it was just as bad to call someone a racist on no evidence than to actually be a racist, and he told me that there was no comparison at all. I guess there is a different standard for those of us who require evidence and proof than those who are magically blessed with the ability to see into men's souls.

Or something like that. Somebody better inform Graf's Panamanian-born wife that he hates South Americans.

All-in-all this was an embarrassment for the paper. I would have been equally as upset if something like this were done to Gabby Giffords or any other candidate. I do have to wonder with all of the outrage manufactured for the Ad Watch about Giffords, if there are any Democrats out there who would stand up to call this for what it is, a vindictive poisonous attack devoid of proof or evidence and bad for discourse as a whole.

I suspect that there are, and that gives me some amount of comfort and hope for politics.

Newspapers on the other hand. . .

Welcome New Blog

Longtime reader and poster (by this blog's standards) x4mr has started his own blog.

His initial offerings are pretty good. Make sure that we all get out to support him;

even if he is an unapologetic lefty :)

Sustainability, Equity, Development: A Quest for Context and Meaning

First up, a reader contest for a shorter more pithy name.

How much does "electability" cost

Democrats, I promise to get to you momentarily :)

There is an interesting article in "The Hill" concerning the narrowing of competative races. Good article, but it carried an important piece of information that I will get to in a second.

Remember the "electability" swipe that Kolbe took at Graf before the election even got underway and the unnamed polls that he cited saying that the district would not vote for Graf? Given his behavior since Graf's nomination I believe it is safe to say that this had a lot to do with Kolbe's personal dislike of Graf rather than his concern for the district or the Republican party. If not for Graf, Kolbe would probably be looking forward to his next term. Again, door, behind, on the way out.

But more puzzling is the NRCC involvement. Why this race, and why only this race? There are certainly more candidates for election that are far more "extreme" than Graf and there was no involvement in those primaries. I then looked at the Senate race where the NRSC became involved and noticed something. If the party comes after you, they play to win. In the Chafee-Laffey primary, the GOTV effort was utilized to it's fullest to marginalize Laffey as well as negative advertising. The GOP effort increased primary turnout by almost 1000% over similar RI primaries in the past. That is some serious "gunning."

As far as I could tell, the RNCC effort in this race was a single television commercial run incessantly, but not the usual Huffman slime shot. It certainly was effective looking at the results, but it almost seems that if the party had tried harder like they did with Chafee they might have turned the election.

When the NRCC stepped in, Huffman was seriously short of money, and his donors were tapped out. The Click machine is deep, but not wide. There is a limit that can be donated from the group based on law, and I believe that the core group was at the limit for the reporting period. Huffman and Click needed cash fast.

In steps the NRCC with a cash infusion of at least $200,000. Notice however, that no extra voter targeting was done, nor was the advertising negative. There appear to have been rules attached to the money. Of course the ads were produced by the NRCC because they had probably seen his earlier attempts.

So where is the quid-pro-quo? Obviously there had to be some sort of payback to the NRCC besides their love of Click and Huffman. The NRCC took a lot of heat and further placed CD-8 in jeopardy because of their actions.

Refer back to the article I linked:

Reynolds also showed members of the conference yesterday that individual Republican candidates had closed their gap on the competition by erasing a $7.2 million deficit in total receipts at the end of June to boast a $200,000 edge by the end of July.

To further boost those efforts, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who has been charged with running the so-called Battleground Program, accepted $2.2 million in donations yesterday, bringing the total to $13.2 million, a Cantor aide said yesterday.

That windfall is due in part to a surprising $602,500 donation by Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) that raised the eyebrows of members and staff present.

"“I think we are at a critical juncture," Shadegg said yesterday.

"This could be … the most important election in my lifetime” from a national security standpoint," Shadegg said. "“I think [withdrawing U.S. troops] would embolden Iran, embolden radical Islam, embolden even North Korea."”

The outspoken conservative, who ran unsuccessfully for majority leader earlier this year, has never been a major donor to the party, but he told the Speaker that intends to give more money to the party this cycle.

Shadegg said much of the money was from large donors who wrote checks directly to the NRCC on his behalf.

Now obviously Click couldn't just write a check to the RNCC to cover the difference plus interest, as that would raise a tremendous amount of red flags and questions. He would have to find another way to get them the money.

Does anyone else know any doners from the area that could funnel $600,000 or more in Shadegg's name to the NRCC?

It would certainly be interesting if Shadegg could better clarify the source of this money.

Huffman Concession

Nice to see that an adult finally got to Steve and let him know what is expected when you lose an election, especially if you ever hope to have a future in politics again. I suspect that Steve felt that he could blow the concession off and never intended to acknowledge Graf at all.

The text and method of delivery speaks volumes. Is it normal that a concession is delivered to a single member of the media as an email? I would suspect that Scarpinato was preparing an article to slam Huffman, and had requested comment. This was more of an attempt to avoid scrutiny than to actually leave with honor and class.

The text of the message is vague and passive, almost brooding. He makes it clear that he intends to make no active effort to help Graf. The damage done by his campaign to the Republican nomination has been very great, and he will need to do more if he ever intends to run in this area again. His weak quasi-concession is not a good start.

It is, however, much better than the bitter, self-serving performance of Jim Kolbe, who seems to think the "big tent" is only applicable to those who fall into his bigoted preferences.

And yes, I wrote and meant "bigoted."

More Graf as a conservative folk hero. . .

If this keeps up, Graf's funding may take care of itself with or without the NRCC:


National Review Online

Polipundit

RedState

And they were discussing the race on the Hugh Hewitt Show on the way home from work.

Good thing we don't have Chads. . .

OK, I thought I could take a small break this morning, but there is late news,

First of all Jim Kolbe has refused to endorse Randy Graf, no surprise there really.

The second is that Steve Huffman has announced that the race is not over as there are still a large amount of early and provisional ballots out there that have yet to be counted.

Graf better have a lawyer, because I smell vote finding.

Here is the breakdown:

Current lead by Graf 3354 votes

Number of outstanding provisional ballots 2, 700

Number of early ballots still not counted 2,800

It would be foreseeable that this could possibly make a difference except that the above numbers are a combined total of Republican and Democratic ballots.

Let's give Steve the benefit of the doubt and say that by some incredible fluke, 75% of these ballots are for the Republican primary.

That leaves a possible vote universe of 4125 votes.

Keep in mind that this assumes that all the provisional ballots are valid.

This would mean that in order to secure a tie or better, Huffman would have to score 81% (I rounded down) of this remaining vote AND have the remaining 19% uniformly move to another candidate other than Graf. Any vote going to Graf increases the percentage that Huffman needs.

The fact that this is still be floated as a remote possibility even should make one wonder if there is some sort of chicanery afoot. If I were Graf, I would make sure to have observers present for the rest of the "counting" process.

The Extreme Candidate

The day speedily cometh where we will mention Steve Huffman no more.

However,

Steve Huffman is a petulant twelve-year-old.

I was joking with Mike Hellon, who had a rather good, if a little somber, party last night that I couldn't find the location of the Huffman victory party on his website. I figured that the Jim Click living room was being used for another function so the party was called off. What I later learned, however, was that the truth was stranger than my joking. Steve Huffman sat at home, watching the returns on his television, and kicked the members of the press out once it became apparent that he was not going to win.

Classic Huffman. Do you think maybe that those volunteers that were walking for him, working his campaign, or donating money to support him would have liked to see some form of thanks for their efforts? Nope, it was, and always has been, about him. Had he won, there would have been few to share the glory with. When he lost, there was nobody left to see him cry.

But it gets worse. At 8:00 after the polls had closed, Steve was still running negative ads against Graf, at least according to my television set.

And finally, to my knowledge, Steve has never called to concede or congratulate Graf, who had the temerity to challenge his superiority by not conceding before the election and ran a gentlemanly campaign, considering the slime-soaked innuendo that comprised almost the entirety of the Huffman campaign. Graf did nothing to earn the disdain shown him by Huffman.

When we keep hearing about "electability" keep in mind who this man was. It wasn't to long ago that civility and honor were a large part of our culture. If keeping the Republican seat meant giving up those principles, than it just wasn't worth it. For what it is worth, I saw those qualities in every Republican candidate save one.

And he will be resigned to the dustbin of history. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Arizona 8th Calls the Race

With 60% of Cochise County reporting 48% to 34% Randy Graf over Steve Huffman.

That should be enough to seal the deal.

Just for the record, I believe that Mike Hellon will do far better than 10 to 12 percent.

Blog Milestone

We just reached over 10,000 visits (not hits but separate visits). Some blogs do that before breakfast, but for a blog with as limited a scope and potential audience as we have, we are very pleased with what has happened in our short run thus far.

Thank you for visiting. If you have any comments or questions you can reach us at arizonaeighth@yahoo.com. Without you, we are just talking to ourselves.

And if you like what we do, tell a friend.

Arizona Eighth Blog Endorsements

Its time for the endorsements:

We endorse:

College Football, but not the BCS (we want playoffs).
Arizona never playing at LSU again.

The FasFuel gas station on the corner of Prince and Oracle ($2.49 a gallon).

T-shirts with the "Stop the Johnson Invasion" slogan.

The chimichanga as the official food of CD-8.

Blackjack Pizza with green olives.

Battlestar Galactica (both versions).

"Oh Brother Where Art Thou," both the movie and the soundtrack.

Lemon-scented essential oils as mosquito repellent.

And, finally, we endorse voting for the person who best represents your beliefs regardless of any other endorsements, advertising, chances of winning, or browbeating. The primary is the last true bastion of grass-roots democracy, and if we lose that, we lose a lot. If you wish to vote for Mike Jenkins, please do so and be proud. If you go with Jeff Latas, he certainly deserves your consideration. Just be sure that you vote with your heart and your vote will in no way be wasted. The biggest waste would be casting a ballot for a candidate you only half-heartedly support.

We have the general for that folks.

Expect more of this. . .

In the threads there has been considerable discussion that with a Graf win, funding for his campaign would dry up. We have argued that the situation he faces would actually make him some type of conservative folk hero that would allow him to gather funds from a cross-section of disaffected conservatives across the country, even without NRCC support.

The "framing" of his candidacy on a national basis has already begun.

I'll bet that many of the major conservative publications and national reach blogsites won't be far behind.

Is Arizona Eighth Blog Deceiving the Public?

This was bound to happen sooner or later:

For immediate release:

Arizona Eighth Blog is Hiding its TRUE beliefs!

Arizona Eighth is a blog. Did you know that Howard Dean used the internet and blogs to raise money during the 2004 Presidential Campaign? Howard Dean is now in charge of the Democratic National Committee. Blogs are a part of his overall strategy. The DNCC under the control of Howard Dean has made advertisements criticizing Steve Huffman's record. Arizona Eighth blog has accused Steve Huffman of negative campaigning. The Arizona Eighth blog is working hand in hand to spread the lie that Steve Huffman is refusing to campaign on the issues, and is spending his time and resources trying to tear down his opponents instead. Can that be a coincidence?

Arizona Eighth is hiding its Muslim Fundamentalist fanaticism

Traditional Muslim law prohibits the printing of images associated with the prophet Muhammad and other pictorial references of their religion. Instead, they rely on ornately inscribed text in their tomes and mosques. The Arizona Eighth Blog has never published pictures of Mohammad. In fact they do not publish images at all. This could be argued as a very extreme form of fundamentalism. This is certainly very disturbing and not representative of the beliefs of Arizona CD-8.

Arizona Eighth Blog is run by a man named "Framer" who is more than likely a criminal.

While a framer could be understood as an individual who builds the outside and inside structure of a house using a hammer and a lot of sweat, it also has a darker, more sinister meaning. A "framer" could also be somebody that accuses another of a crime that they themselves have committed. Obviously, since this individual prefers to remain anonymous he has something to hide. Likely, if given a chance he would burn a religious symbol on YOUR private property as criminals often do. Is this the kind of person we need running a blog in Southern Arizona!!



Please note that this is a parody and is not Paid for by Huffman for Congress

New on Arizona 8th: Images!!

As promised, here is the image of the infamous Bush photograph in Randy Graf's office that was turned upside down:

It's not really what I had envisioned either.

And don't be expecting fancy things like images and such on this blog in the future. I almost made this image black and white on principle alone.

Huffman, fact checked

Arizona Star seems to be a little upset that Huffman sourced them in his latest hit piece.

We have also obtained a copy of the infamous photo of President Bush that was turned upside down in Graf's office. I will post that later today after I find a place to host it.

Further Poll Analysis

Seen a lot of the poll analysis out there in the press and in the blogosphere and I will add in my two cents:

1. Gabby should be picking out her celebratory alcohol of choice . Obviously, there will be a different cross-section of voters that will vote in the primary this year. You do not want to be in the position, however, of depending upon them for a win.

"We know that we're going to live and die by occasional voters."- Patty Weiss campaign

This is especially bad news if you are 17 points down. You wouldn't trust your business to occasional workers, your campaign is no different.

I will bet that the overall margin of victory will be under 17 points, however.

2. Huffman's ads have made some impact. It looks like there have been a few drop-offs from Graf, and looking at the numbers, they have moved to Antenori which is logical. This has to be a disappointment for Hellon who was expecting them to go his way.

Notice, however that these were likely voters polled, not likely primary voters which are an entirely different creature. Just this fact alone could have accounted for the jump for Huffman, outside of him gaining momentum. This is a very lenient measure for Huffman and almost a best case for him under the circumstances, especially as this was before the other candidates started hitting back at him.

The other issue is that many of the Graf and Hellon voters have already voted. Huffman's early voting drive was almost non-existent. He is depending upon people to show up the day of the primary, One vote in the bank is worth two in the bush so we will have to see what happens.

I would bet, however that 24.5 percent will prove to be the high water mark of his campaign.

Finally, not sure that the general election polling is incredibly useful right now, but if it turns out to be accurate, I would wager that that Huffman and the RNCC's just under 1 million has purchased the ten point lead for Gabby. Go team Go!!!!!

Arizona Eighth Blog Apologizes

When we are wrong, we say so.

A while back I made a comment concerning the apparent objectivity of Margaret Kenski over her analysis over the poll that she conducted. I have never met Ms. Kenski, but believed by the comments quoted in the analysis article and her prior relationship with the Kolbe campaign showed that she may have a little more invested in the outcome of the primary.

After reading the latest article in the Tucson Citizen I must admit that her analysis is right down the line. It is quite possible that she was selectively quoted in the other article I read. Her analysis is quite possibly the most refreshingly honest that I have seen over the whole NRCC kerfuffle and with her experience, she is definitely in a position to know.

Again, my apologies to Ms. Kenski and I hope to hear more from her in the future as she looks to be the only political analyst the local press can go to that actually adds to the story.

New Rumor

Been hearing the rumor that the Dark Lord of Democratic Defeat is planning a visit to Tucson later this month.

I wonder if this has anything to do with "making nice" with the eventual Republican nominee should Huffman fall short. I'm pretty sure that they would not be sending him to deliver a "Sorry buddy, you're screwed," message.

If and when it happens, we will do our best to be there to report it.

WaPo is first out of the gate

Here is the first article covering the candidate announcement:

Well, OK, it's the AP

Hellon is still pretty steamed. I got that. He has every right to be.

Good to see somebody with press creds asking Ed Patru questions. Hopefully there will be more.

Not sure I agree with the final statement. It's a race by all means, but there is a favorite. That is the reason the NRCC intervened.

Further Press Conference Details

It wasn't that large of a press conference, and it was almost embarrassingly sparsely covered (as have been all of the CD-8 events for that matter). What took place, however was perhaps one of the most significant events in Arizona politics that has occurred for several years.

It is a pretty shallow secret that Jim Click rules Arizona GOP politics. He not only writes the checks, but he also controls the money. If he doesn't give to you, nobody else will either. If he cannot wrestle an endorsement for his chosen candidate, he can freeze the endorsement from going to the competition. His power is such that he sits on candidate committees even when they are using clean elections money (Len Munsil) and can bend the national party to the point of almost committing Hari-Kari in perhaps one of the most important districts in the 2006 congressional election, just to satisfy his whim.

What is unique here, is that for perhaps the first time, a group of candidates have aligned against the area GOP power structure and, more importantly, they are going to prevail.

Mr. Click's name was never mentioned during the press conference, most of the heat was reserved for Steve Huffman and the RNCC and deservedly so, as they are ultimately responsible for their own decisions, and each have made some very poor choices.

After the general statement that I already posted was read, each of the candidates delivered their own statements. Here are a few highlights:

Frank Antenori- Frank was very well spoken, referencing the fact that he has served in the military and also served the Republican party, by volunteering, donating money, and even filming an ad for President Bush's reelection campaign. He was repaid by a knife in the back. Moreover, Ron Drake is fighting for his political life in CD-7 and can't get a dime from the national party. It is a travesty that Republican donor dollars are being used to fight other Republicans on behalf of a weak candidate who has put together a disaster of a campaign.

Randy Graf- Of all the candidates, I felt that Graf was the most restrained. He commented that he has been the victim of a slew of reckless and unwarranted negative campaigning by Huffman and those who support him. He also reiterated that the National party had broken their word, and meddled in the campaign that was the domain of the voters. He also unveiled a telephone hotline that he said will be use to further clarify what was discussed here and to counter the salacious lies and smears that have been passed by the Huffman campaign. The number is available at his website at http://www.votegraf.com.

Mike Jenkins- He just gets better and better with his public speaking, and this was perhaps his best moment so far. He emphasized the desire of Republicans to maintain the seat and control of Congress and how he is saddened that the NRCC is breaking its own rules and supporting one candidate over another during a hotly contested Primary. The primary election belongs to the voters, not those who would overwhelm the race with selective financial support. The actions of the RNCC amount to stealing control of the election from voters.

Mike Hellon- He was the highlight of the conference, and the most direct and to the point in his condemnation. He recounted his considerable experience in serving the GOP in Arizona and than said "Steve Huffman's campaign has been bought and paid for by special interests." he then went on to discuss Steve's absences from voting when border legislation was brought up. He also went on to discuss that border security is not really a priority of the current congress, and their support of Huffman is due to the fact that he will "do as he is told."

His most striking quote, however, was "The unprecedented intrusion into a primary election by the NRCC is, in my opinion, tantamount to institutional corruption. . ." As I get more time tomorrow I will try to get the transcription of his remarks digitized in their entirety.

The question and answer session was highlighted by the question. "If Steve Huffman wins, would all of you support him in the general election?" which in turn was answered by the sound of chirping crickets.

Official Joint Statement Press Release

I attended the press announcement and will have more about this later, including statements from the candidates individually. However, I do need to get some personal capitolism taken care of before I can do that. In the meantime, here is the official joint release:

JOINT STATEMENT ISSUED BY

FRANK ANTENORI, RANDY GRAF, MIKE HELLON,

AND MIKE JENKINS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 5, 2006

"Today, we, four of the five Republican candidates for Congress in Arizona's Eighth District take a bold step to jointly declare our unified outrage at the highly unusual actions taken by the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) to openly support one candidate, Steve Huffman, in this Republican primary.

On March 30, 2006, RNC Chairman Ken Mehiman visited Tucson to attend a local party fundraiser. During his visit, Mehlman held a private meeting with the five declared candidates for Congress or their representatives. Present at that meeting were Frank Antenori, Randy Graf, Mike Hellon, and Mike Jenkins. Steve Huffman sent a representative, his former treasurer, Bill Arnold. At that private meeting, Mehlman made it clear that the national Republican Party would stay out of the primary race, promising to help whomever the voters of the Eighth Congressional District chose as their candidate for Congress in the upcoming General Election. Those sentiments were echoed by NRCC officials during private meetings in Washington, D.C. with some candidates in this race. Sadly, the promises that were made have been broken.

Additionally, the funds expended by the NRCC are monies reserved to defeat Democrats in the fall, and are not used to work against other Republican candidates in the primary. That right is usually - and should always be - reserved for the voters. What's more, these funds are raised from hardworking Republicans across the country, folks who support Republican principles. These donors would be shocked to know that their contributions are being used to defeat credible Republican candidates here in Arizona. We call on the NRCC to immediately stop using Republican fundraising dollars to defeat fellow Republicans. This primary campaign should remain above the belt and outside the Beltway.

We want the people of Congressional District Eight to know that this seat is not for sale. We trust the voters to choose their Republican nominee - not Washington special interests."

Contact Information:

Frank Antenori for Congress
Matt Neely, (520) 419-0609

Randy Graf for Congress
R.T. Gregg, (520) 877-2984

Mike Hellon for Congress
George Gobble, (520) 319-8217

Mike Jenkins for Congress
Lauren Blevins, (520) 403-7973

Breaking News

First on Arizona Eighth. . .

It seems that Frank Antenori, Randy Graf, Mike Hellon, and Mike Jenkins have called a joint press announcement for Tuesday, September 5 at 11:00 am at the at the Reid Park Doubletree Hotel. The topic of the announcement has yet to be addressed.

If I were a gambling man, however, I might place money on this being a protest about the way that Steve Huffman and his backers have turned this campaign into a cesspool of innuendo and sour grapes desperation. This discussion may include the NRCC who seems to be doing their level best to alienate District 8 Republican voters and guarantee this seat falls into Democratic hands, something which most of their contributors no doubt would oppose. It may also have something to do with the extreme interference in the electoral process by Jim Click who seems to be a bit miffed that the candidate that he bought and paid for is likely to lose, despite the enormous sums of money that he has arranged to be funneled to Huffman, but be excluded from Hellon.

Or, it could be a little Tuesday morning quarterbacking over tomorrow night's football game coupled with predictions for the upcoming NFL season. Fantasy football picks will be available on a subscriber only basis.

Probably one of the two.

PCC Forum

So, if you were looking for excitement at the forum, the guy with a flashlight dressed in a trenchcoat posing as a stalker was probably as good as it got. Not sure who he was affiliated with, but it was kind of fun in a sophomoric way.

As far as the actual forum, it was pretty much a snoozer. I'm not sure if it was because of the television cameras, or the fact that the candidates have done so many of these things but there was very little in the way of fireworks form the candidate end. Here is what I saw:

Steve Huffman: He was there, so that is a start. He actually did a half decent job when answering the questions and didn't go negative. I was particularly impressed on the "faith in government" question where I thought that he actually gave the best answer. When the "11th commandment" question was brought up, he ducked so hard Daffy and Donald felt threatened. Obviously the negativity is not finished. Steve stayed for the entire debate, but cleared out as soon as he could. Somebody should sit him down and explain that he needs to stop and talk with the people that attend these things. Some of them may be press or anonymous bloggers that may be persuaded to give him positive press that he doesn't need to pay for.

Mike Hellon: Solid performance by Mike if unspectacular. Let Steve off the hook a bit with the 11th Commandment question, especially in comparison with the Tucson Republican Women's breakfast. He projected confidence and statesmanship and stayed on message. I still wonder what he could have done with even a quarter of the money that fell to Steve.

Randy Graf: Didn't really bomb, but didn't meet up with his usual high standards. This is perhaps the weakest performance I have seen from Graf in a while. He did have his usual command of specific facts and legislation, which always works well, and I always enjoy the pocket constitution. His response of being "highly disappointed in Mr. Huffman" was measured and appropriate when faced with the 11th commandment question. I did think that his closing statement where he went after Huffman was out of character for Randy. Of course I am not facing a constant barrage of negative advertising about me personally with more on the horizon.

Frank Antenori: Superb as always. If Frank doesn't win the primary, he should at least get his own reality show, and another series where he discusses politics with Francine Schacter and they interview guests in the defunct "Crossfire" fashion (Frank and Francine, my people will be in touch with you). Appropriately passionate and focused, these forums are his bread and butter. He also has a pocket constitution, although I would bet that his is specially treated to stop a bullet. He also understands the importance of staying late to work the crowd. We should expect big things of Frank even if the Primary doesn't go his way.

Mike Jenkins: Of all the candidates, I think that Mike has grown the most of all in the time that I have followed the campaign. Where several months ago he looked nervous and tentative at these forums, he now looks comfortable and confident. His answers were consistent and controlled without the gruffness that he used to show. He also did a good job of getting his supporters to the forum, as I saw several Jenkins bumper stickers in the parking lot, and more Jenkins tee shirts inside. Even if he does not win this race, Jenkins will be far more formidable in future races.

Again, I apologize for the bland review, but I wasn't given a lot to work with. I believe the rerun will be on cable access Saturday night at 8:00 pm. Too bad most of the city will be attending the U of A-BYU football game which should be a sellout. If you are debating between the two, go for the football game.

Don't write off Old Media yet. . .

AZ Congress Watch already beat me to is but there was a rather detailed and informative article published by Congressional Quarterly.

I do wish however that we could get articles written without the main sources being Jim Kolbe and Margaret Kenski. The conventional wisdom that Graf is skating only because Hellon and Huffman are splitting the vote is old and broken, and demonstrably so. Graf is winning because he has run a far more effective campaign thus far, and is not merely picking up the "sloppy seconds" left by the other two major candidates.

I really haven't seen the "temper tantrums" referred to either, other than Hellon's refusal to drop out of the race, which is plain silly. Hellon isn't in some sort of cabal with Huffman and doesn't really owe him anything. It would be just as valid to point out that a Huffman victory places the party in greater danger of losing the election to the Democratic challenger with the utterly inept and embarrassment of a campaign he has run to this point, so Hellon should withdraw and support Graf. That isn't going to happen either.

I also enjoy the term "many Republican officials, including Kolbe. . ." as being concerned that Graf cannot win. Either name them or just quote Kolbe like everyone else. The Graf issue seems more like a Kolbe crusade more than anything else, unless one counts Jim Click as "many Republican officials. I'm not going to pin this on CQ, however as this has been the only thing the national people had on this race for months.

My favorite part, however, was the damage control attempted by Dave Spuempfle which was promptly cross-checked against Chuck Coughlin. If you can't even get out a couple lines pumping your campaign without CQ checking your accuracy, things aren't really going well for your primary campaign.

Overall, however the article was well researched, well written, and insightful which is a direct counter example from the AP article I cited previously.

More please.

Dinosaur Media

Here is a great reason why you cannot trust the Arizona Republic for your campaign news (or the AP for that matter).

Key snippet:
Former state legislator Gabrielle Giffords has emerged as the Democrat to beat, while the Republican race is much tighter, with state Rep. Steve Huffman holding no clear-cut lead over contenders Randy Graf, a former state legislator, and Mike Hellon, a former state GOP chairman.

Unless "holds no clear-cut lead" is synonymous with "getting crushed by 23%" they simply have done no research on this race other than look at the names of the people running and the money raised. If this is the case, please spare us from writing the article at all.

And why does the Republic pick this story up, as they at least should know better?

Poll Internals

You can get those at Inside Tucson Business

I'll have further comments about these internals later. . .

Some Analysis of GOP polling

I'm not even going to touch the Democratic portion of the poll other than say I overestimated the support for Patty Weiss. I guess I need to hang out with more liberal bloggers.

On the GOP side, reference this post I made 5 weeks ago.

Today's poll release shows that the leaked poll results I got then seem to be stunningly accurate. They were:

30% Graff
12% Hellon
4% Huffman

with 54% undecided.

What this would seem to show is that almost a quarter of the previous undecideds have decided and Huffman seems to be picking them up in greater numbers due to his advertising blitz. However, Graf looks to have received a good share of these voters as well with far less money spent and if the current undecideds continue to split at this rate, there are not enough of them for Steve to make the race competitive. Especially as a large percentage of the remaining undecideds aren't likely to show up and vote in the primary if history holds.

Hellon, on the other hand seems to be holding steady with the supporters that he held a month ago. Before the window-peeping flap it could have been argued that Hellon had topped out. It will be interesting to see what the coming week holds for him.

As of now, barring an implosion of some sort, Randy Graf looks to be Republican nominee for CD-8.

Results are in

from the Tucson Weekly Blog

Republicans:

Randy Graf: 36 percent
Steve Huffman: 13 percent
Mike Hellon: 10 percent
Mike Jenkins: 1 percent
Frank Antenori: 1 percent
Undecided: 39 percent

Democrats:

Gabrielle Giffords: 45 percent
Patty Weiss: 27 percent
Jeff Latas: 6 percent
Alex Rodriguez: 1 percent
Bill Johnson: 1 percent
Francine Schacter: 1 percent
Undecided: 20 percent

Simply WOW!

Pre-Poll Breakfast

While waiting for the news on the actual CD-8 polling, here are a few national snippits to tide you over:

Democrats are fond of tying support for the Republican candidate in CD-8 to the job performance of the President and his dwindling numbers:

Indeed those low numbers can be tied into the national trend that shows that the average voter prefers a generic Democratic candidate over a generic Republican

And on top of that the general feeling in CD-8 is that we have simply had enough of Republican rule and are ready to sweep a specific Democrat into office (pay attention to his first data point)

So with all of the bad national polling news, hopefully the Republicans will find something to be cheerful about with the poll released later today.

When a scandal hurts. . .

Steve Huffman really stepped in it with this story. This is a semi-serious allegation as it stands on it's own. However, because of who he is and how he has positioned himself, this could be the death knell for Huffman. Here's why:

1. Huffman is a negative campaigner and a dirt digger. This was well known going into the contest and has shown itself in the primary. His first two television ads appeared to be almost formalities so that he could get to the mudslinging (although I bet he wished he could have the flashlight ad back). There is no one outside of Huffman's mother who would believe that he had nothing to do with the actions of Bill Arnold. It all fits to well with what is known about him and the way he campaigns. I wrote earlier on the Aiken scandal "" A campaign manager is not the candidate, and there is plenty of time to repair the damage and regain momentum." In this case, Arnold (treasurer, not the campaign manager) reflects exactly the actions and stances of Huffman and it will be hard for Huffman to separate himself.

2. The time factor, there really isn't much time to repair the damage and regain momentum. If Huffman had a crack staff (which at this point I am seriously doubting) this sets him at least a week back in terms of managing the damage and regrouping. We are exactly three weeks from the Primary and early voting has already begun.

3. It seriously hurts him if he continues to go negative. Anybody he attacks only has to respond "Have you been peeking into my windows again, Steve?" to deflect the attack. The correct way to deal with the scandal is to refocus the campaign and hit on Steve's positives and issues, and I am not confident that Steve is able to run this type of campaign.

4. The fact that it happened to Toni Hellon is also a huge negative. There would have been plenty of people that showed up to vote for Toni that also would have voted for Steve. This just isn't going to happen now. All of those votes are going to her ex-husband. It also has a lot of people who only follow politics marginally wondering what Huffman was doing spying on Mike Hellon's ex-wife not knowing about Steve's earlier plans to run against her. To these people this entire affair will just sound icky and make Steve look like a stalker.

5. Mike Hellon owns Steve Huffman. Does anybody actually think that Toni just found out last week who was posting the pictures back in April? Her and Mike have been sitting on this information and waited until Steve was hip deep in negative advertising to release it. It was a masterful bit of ju-jiutsu and subtlety that again shows that Mike has been ahead of Steve on every move since the Kolbe endorsement. There have even been rumors that Hellon was responsible for leaking the information on Steve Aiken which again was promptly blamed upon Steve Huffman. It would have been interesting to see this race play out with Hellon getting the endorsement.

Back the Truck up

Just been reading all the breaking news about the RNCC being responsible for the pro-Giffords push poll that was "revealed" during the Weiss press conference. I have read all of the findings online and count me in as less than impressed with the amount of detail provided that led up to the stunning conclusion.

1. The poll took place and it definitely was a push poll.

2. Patty's people backtracked the the calls and found that they originated from Western Wats. I believe that this happened and is true.

3. Everything else after this point is hearsay and conjecture.

It appears that the rest of the footprints are provided by this article. This story is about a push poll in the New York 20th Congressional District where a Republican is attacking a Democratic candidate. This poll was also tracked back to Western Wats. then the following paragraph was included:

A Western Wats worker said the poll was commissioned by The Tarrance Group, a national Republican polling firm that does a lot of work for the National Republican Congressional Committee. She would not reveal on whose behalf The Tarrance Group is polling.

So a single (as in one) unidentified (as in nobody that can be followed up with or fact checked) worker (no position identified, it could have been the CEO or vending machine stocker) said that the poll was commissioned by the Tarrance Group. I do not doubt that the Tarrance group works with Western Wats, I wouldn't even be shocked if they do engage in push polling from time to time. However, I am pretty sure that Western Wats does not make a practice of revealing who is behind which poll unless they are given leave to do so by their client. In this case the information could be gathered in a verifiable manner (company records show, or a spokesman, John Doe, from Western Wats verified. . .) However, since this information is clearly not public knowledge a single anonymous source will have to do.

So we have a pretty tenuous thread that holds the Tarrance Group to the Poll in New York. We immediately switch to the RNCC paying the Tarrance Group $391,087 for polling this year (verifiable). Then a DNCC source (not named, not objective, and probably not in a great position to know the exact specifics) says that the RNCC have given the Republican candidate in New York $16,275 for polling. No verification that it was a push poll or otherwise, or that this particular poll or any of his polls was contracted through the Terrance Group.

So is there any verifiable information that Patty has that shows that Western Wats did the push poll on the request of the Tarrance Group other than the fact that they have worked with the Tarrance Group before? If so, it is not laid out on her or Michael Bryan's posts.

The fact is that any push poll is likely to be associated with Western Wats as a push poll takes an entirely different degree of bandwidth than normal polls due to the number and the specifity of those contacted. Western Wats is one of the few providers that could accomplish such a poll in a short amount of time.

But the calculus appears to be:

Push polls are evil
Republicans are evil
Western Wats ran the poll
Republicans have used Western Wats

Ergo. . .

Brilliant move by Patty however, there was no way that she could prove that Gabby did the poll, so she blamed it on Rove which a lot are likely to believe absent of evidence. And an enemy of Rove would seem to merit a good look as a candidate, and short of admitting complicity in the push poll, there is little that Gabby can do to dilute this message.

However, if the proof given so far is all that there is, it is either sloppy or dishonest research, and should in no way constitute definitive proof of Republican involvement.

If there is something I have missed, I would be happy to reassess.

Is Gabby Giffords really Snow White?

The Arizona political blogosphere is still in its infancy, and I must admit that my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle have quite the advantage so far on us Republicans, which means that sometimes we have to wade over into their internal discussions, which I am fine with.

But there is something that really has made me wonder. It appears that there is a great cross section of bloggers who have a politician confused with a Disney Princess. Here are the facts:

1. Gabby's "Darkness" ad stretched the truth quite a bit. She knew it when she ran the ad, calculated that no one would challenge it, and lost. I do not think that makes her an evil person, just a politician. You can bring up legislators that "were there as it happened" that rushed to her defense, but we all know that her Legislative peers weren't going to shove her under the bus, especially as she has a pretty decent chance of winning. I especially enjoyed the conspiracy theories that a "Republican" reporter had set out to destroy Gabby. A likelier story is that the only reason that the story was allowed to run was because the larger paper was going to endorse Gabby, and they wanted to show that that they could be tough on "their" candidate as well.

Now the whole idea of newspapers endorsing candidates should be a scandal all in itself, especially this far out. Shouldn't they have to preface any story concerning Gabby or any of the other candidates with "In the interest of full disclosure, we would prefer that Ms. Giffords win the election?"

However, the fact remains that she stretched the truth, dug in her heels when called on it, and waited for other people to help bail her out. It really wasn't her finest moment.

2. The "Push polling" scandal that is all the rage now is not being done by Republicans. The only person with the money to do it would be Steve Huffman, and he is busy push polling and outright negative advertising about Randy Graf. Equally silly is the assertion that it is being done by Patty Weiss herself. I mean, really, if you are seriously thinking that this is what is going on, you need to step away from the Oliver Stone movies (I mean the earlier stuff not his latest ;))

Here's the deal, this is probably not being done by Gabby directly, but either she, or her people know who is behind it, and knew beforehand. She may even come out and denounce it, but not before the calls are actually made. Again, we need to reference the fact that this is the moment that could make Gabby's entire life. To believe that she will not do everything possible to attain it is just not realistic. Those that continue to assert her prom queen innocence do her a great disservice, by the way.

To show that I am equal opportunity, however, I believe the reason that Patty has not said much about it is that she intends to engage in a little push polling of her own.

3. Gabby has raised over $800,000. To believe that all of this money poured in with no strings attached is also silly. When Gabby was in Washington (what is an Arizona legislator doing in D.C. anyway, especially while is session) she was attending meetings with just the type of people that are now donating to her campaign. Her state career was just a step in her national ambitions, which led to her vanilla voting record where she stayed clear of controversy. This is also why she never used clean election funds. Even if she has definite ideas about being her own person, she has taken money from those who think otherwise. This is not even debatable.

All that said, this does not disqualify Gabby from running. Indeed most of the candidates running for office all over the country are just as guilty. The other candidates, more often than not, lose spectacularly. This doesn't mean I will vote for Gabby, but I can understand where she is at. If you feel that she is indeed some virginal vessel of purity that will cleanse Congress by her very presence, you need to be reading Teen Beat instead of political blogs. Francine is actually closer to that type of person (and I will not be voting for her either).

What you need from your candidate is an action item list of realistic issues that they can accomplish on your behalf that the other candidates cannot. If they speak of solving all the World's ills, beware. If you feel that Gabby has those, you would do far better pointing them out than concocting conspiracy theories and excuses about things which Gabby herself wouldn't ask you to defend. Better to be more of an advocate than a fan.

About the "Midnight Vote" Kerfuffle

Not going to say a lot about this except,

1. This was not a Republican "hit piece." Had Republicans been responsible the timing would have been different. I'm not really sure that Republicans are quaking in fear of a Gifford's win in the primary as some have believed.

2. I have seen many comments on many boards by a few people claiming that the writer cannot be trusted because he may have been, or associates with Republicans. The irony of this is delicious. Imagine a member of the press belonging to, agreeing with, being active in, and actually voting for another political party. Welcome to the world of Republicans, except it is not just a once in a while thing.

3. The fact that this is labeled as a hit piece at all is just hyperventalating. Newspapers do this schtick every election period. They see an add and fact check it. They will also do it for Weiss, Huffman, Graf, and perhaps Hellon if he buys any television time. Enterprising papers will also do it for debates as well. Everyone knows that when you put up an ad, you are going to fudge a little to place yourself in a good light. Just don't cite outright falsehoods and you will be OK. The Steve Huffman flashlight in his latest ad should have caused more of an uproar than this.

4. This entire uproar simply helps lend credence to my previous hypothesis. The only reason that this is of any moment at all is because Gabby will not separate herself from the people she is running against. If she were to show up to the next mixed forum and aggressively hound Randy Graf for the length of the forum the sniping would subside substantially. I'm not saying this would be an easy thing to do, but she will be facing a Republican in a month. Now would be a good time to confront Republicans outside of a thirty second television ad about an obscure parliamentary device. The next issue may be if she can face Republicans without yelling "quorum" and leaving town for three days to recover her calm.

Or perhaps it will be about the tenderfoot way she approaches the horses in her ads, or the weak tourqe that was placed on the lugnuts she used in her tire shop. The thing is, Gabby can end all this, but she will have to show up and lead and not rely on coasting.

State of the campaign - Democratic Primary

So, I have wanted to post something on the Democratic Primary race and have held back because I do not have as many contacts or sources among the candidates. I have spent the last several weeks, however, conducting some informal research on where things are going. I did my best to target solid Democrats and Non-Republicans to get their feelings on the race and step outside of the local blogging crowd.

What I found was pretty eye-opening.

Here's the deal. Patty Weiss is ahead, and if the primary were held tomorrow, she would be the winner.

The results among the people I spoke with were not as close as what I believe the race to actually be, but it certainly provided a counter-balance to what I had come to believe by reading the latest blog comments. Of the people I spoke with, almost every one of them knew Patty, and most intended to vote for her. Not in a "she's the only person I know so I will vote for her" way, but with a "I really like Patty Weiss." Of the people who were aware of Gabby, I got more negative reactions than positive. And of course there were a few Latas supporters.

Now I realize that my results were in no way scientific, but like I said, I was certainly surprised at what I found, and the reasoning behind people's thinking was the most enlightening.

It appears that many of the negatives towards Gabby were not anything that was immediately apparent like "she voted for Walmart!" It was more of a "meh" type reaction in that Gabby didn't really do anything for them. They have seen her commercials and there is nothing that really grabbed them. Her story really isn't that appealing to them, and they really haven't followed her career in the legislature. Again, this was contrasted by Patty's story where many feel like she has overcome oppression and is now is going to "stick it to the man." Gabby came across like a DNC insider, while Patty was more of an outsider to them. And we all know how Arizonans like their Mavericks.

So once I had heard all this, I tried to reconcile this with the facts I knew on the ground. Here is what I came up with:

1. Gabby scorched everyone with her signature gathering. Indeed this feat was impressive. It goes to show that Gabby had a tremendously effective gameplan and staff. This was to be expected as she has run for office before. Indeed, had Patty not run, she probably would have been coronated for the slot quite quickly. Patty entered a little later and made some rookie mistakes. She seems to have evened that out now.

2. Gabby has a lot of endorsements and money. This is indeed the case. However, the whole endorsement thing is kind of a sham anyway. In the case of the Democratic candidates, their stand on most issues is so similar that no one candidate is a flat out better choice than another. In these case an organization will do their best to prognosticate the winner, as you wouldn't want to back a loser, especially in the primary. Donations are the much the same way. Who wants to spend $1000 on a person that won't last past September. I actually think that Gabby had a lot of her donations lined up before she decided to run. This was probably a precondition on her decision to run.

3. Gabby has a lot of boots on the ground. This one may be a bit deceptive. She certainly has a large contingent on the blogs and did a good job with her signatures, but I haven't seen a lot of Gabby bumper stickers or signs. Also, in the silly poll that was done in the Citizen, she didn't get a lot of support in that popularity contest. It is perhaps of no consequence, but I highly doubt that Gabby and all her supporters thought that this was beneath notice or they "didn't wish to cheat." They simply didn't get enough support soon enough to register. This would probably speak of a highly centralized campaign that doesn't have a lot of "freelance" leaders that could gather supporters quickly. Winning campaigns need those type of people.

Now I certainly do not believe that this is all sewn up. Patty certainly has a lot of work to do, and she cannot take even a moment off. She certainly has more previous television time than she will ever need. What she needs to do is get out to see people personally with every chance she gets and take nothing for granted. The fact that she is showing for all the forums is great for her and is definitely in contrast to Gabby's absences. Taking on the Republicans on their own turf is certainly what Democrats wish to see in their candidate and will only add to her maverick credentials.

Gabby needs to pick up her game. She needs to not skip events and she needs to stand out on issues. Her current "play it safe" stance could and will cost her in the primary. She needs the Democratic base, as I would assume that her advantage with independents isn't incredibly large if a lead at all against Patty.

Also in Gabby's favor is the fact that her negatives aren't really all that material, it's just that she doesn't stand out as much as she otherwise could. She needs to find an issue important to voters in the district and own it. So far, this just hasn't happened. A message and $800,000 would be tough to beat. If her strategy is to out-television Patty, she may have more time to ride those horses I keep seeing in her commercials.

Then again, I'm not a pollster, I just play one on this blog.

Broken Conventional Wisdom

One thing that can be agreed upon from the start of the GOP campaign primary season was that the conventional wisdom was almost completely wrong. Some of what we were treated to:

The Kolbe endorsement will declare the frontrunner.

This really has helped Huffman raise money, but hasn't yet translated to a groundswell of support from likely voters.

The Kolbe Endorsement was the end of Mike Hellon.

A lot of people were thinking that Hellon would drop out once he failed to get the backing of Kolbe. None of these people were that familiar with Mike Hellon.

Jim Kolbe picked the most dynamic candidate out of Huffman and Hellon.

From the campaigning so far, Hellon has run circles around Huffman. If he had been given the financial support that fell to Huffman, I guarantee he would have done a far better job of utilizing it. Currently, I expect him to get more votes than Huffman, possibly a significant number.

Steve Huffman would go negative at the first opportunity.

I posted that because Hellon had been allowed to move in a position between Huffman and Graf, an overly negative campaign would not help him as much as it had in the past. This may change but has held true so far.

Randy Graf was too extreme to get the nomination.

This was shorthand for Graf being a "racist xenophobe." So much so, that Hellon and Huffman have now adopted pretty much all of his official positions with regard to securing the border.

Mike Hellon was wasting his money airing ads early in the summer.

These ads cemented Mike legitimacy and allowed him to define himself free of other chatter. It also allowed him to move toward his current position on border enforcement without being challenged.

The Aiken scandal was the end of Graf.

I was quotedin AZ Congress Watch as saying " A campaign manager is not the candidate, and there is plenty of time to repair the damage and regain momentum." I took a lot of heat for that. I also said that it may be a chance for Graf to bring somebody in that could help better raise money which also happened.

The Huffman media blitz would be relentless.

I must admit to buying into this one. I have to say I have been underwhelmed so far. His first commercial was a complete dud, and his second, although incorporating many of the fixes I suggested misfired in that he just underlined a drastic policy shift. Had the same production been about earmark reform or a non-Graf and Hellon issue, it would have been a lot more effective.

District 8 is more interested in Universal Health Care and the Iraqi War (name any other issue) than securing the border.

We have yet to see how this plays out, but I am extremely skeptical based on the dramatic policy shifts of Hellon and Huffman. They have definitely seen polling that shows otherwise. I believe that Democrats saying this are simply whistling past the graveyard.

This District will only elect a Moderate like Jim Kolbe.
Complete Hogwash. This district was solidly pro-Bush, pro-prop 200, and will pass the marriage resolution if it is on the ballot. Kolbe has enjoyed the advantages of a 20 year incumbent where reelection rates run as high as 96%. There is a chance that the GOP may lose the district, but it will not happen because of some Moderate litmus test. It will happen because a specific candidate has better ideas and runs a better campaign, not because they resemble Jim Kolbe. This goes for Democrats as well.

Summary- The point is that I am not a master pundit. I am a rookie. The ability to see past most of these pieces of "Conventional Wisdom" this was available with just a small amount of research and questioning assumptions, little of which was done by the media or others reporting on the primary. It would be interesting to do a study of this on the Democratic side as well. I haven't made much prognostications on that side, so I am probably not the ideal person to do it, but it would be interesting.