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.