Saturday, April 03, 2010

KOS Poll

Not surprisingly, few AZ righty blogs mention the AZ Senate Poll conducted this week and published at Daily Kos. Yes, Daily Kos is a left associated operation, but its methodology, described at the bottom of the results, is sound, and it intentionally oversampled Republicans to fortify its validity. One of the few conservative blogs supporting (or minimally, open to posts that support) John McCain, Sonoran Alliance discusses it here in a well written post that provides numerous links to other references. Rachel's supposed to be bright, so her attempt to tag it as a push-poll is surprising. The questions are clean pitches right over the plate with results posted directly. No curves. Come on, Rachel. It is not a push-poll, and high fluctuating “no opinion” numbers suggest clean polling.

The poll provides some compelling pictures. First, let’s state the obvious result the poll confirmed and everyone knows: If McCain wins the primary, he wins the general. Second, the poll suggests that, when you strip away the hype and hysteria, McCain has the extraordinary momentum, name recognition, and sheer inevitability of a long established incumbent, showing McCain beating Hayworth 52% to 37%.

"Far left poll!" notes Rachel. She thinks the left would rather face McCain than Hayworth? Also, how about the abysmal numbers (55% disapproval) for Obama? They sampled 600 likely AZ voters with an appropriate 337 in Maricopa and 162 in Pima/Pinal/Santa Cruz. They split gender perfectly and oversampled Republicans. It's not an Obama friendly bunch, as the numbers clearly show.

No one has mentioned what leaps out of the results regarding race. Does the GOP understand that the tea party rage and associated screaming has drop kicked its relationship with minorities? See the 3% black for the GOP in the various match-ups? That's one person. The rest of the African Americans voted Democratic, period, no matter who ran against whom. Hispanics are almost as disgusted, and upcoming immigration discussions will likely exacerbate their outrage. The tea party might as well don white sheets, raise the Confederate flag, and howl about taking their country back.

That country was defeated in 1865.

As Frank Rich brilliantly distinguished, the outrage over health care has nothing to do with health care. Too early to say, but perhaps 2010 will be the most racially divisive election since 1864. If I were a Democratic strategist, rocking the minority vote would be a major initiative. The tea party crowd seems to think this country is theirs and theirs alone, but unlike 1864, in 2010 the spics and jigaboos get to vote.



Anonymous Framer said...

So you are joining the Democrat establishment in going with the "Helter Skelter" option as a strategy to avoid electorial slaughter?

Good luck with that, I guess.

4/05/2010 2:33 PM  
Anonymous Observer said...

So Framer, you are actually suggesting that the tea party signs and slurs are generating followers among the "wetbacks and coons"?

My favorite sign, "SPEAK ENGLISH!! ITS ARE LANGUAGE!!"

The whites only primary between McCain and Hayworth will be very interesting.

At least the tea party has the solid support of the homosexual community.

4/05/2010 6:12 PM  
Blogger x4mr said...

Don't hold back, Observer. Framer can take it.

Framer, do you really think tea doesn't have a racial problem? The Confederacy themes are almost deafening. What bothers me even more is the lack of regard for truth. We go back to 2006, and I know you are grounded in facts, but more often than not tea is perpetrating outright fiction as Rachel points out.

The blue tsunami happened - in two waves.

Unlike W, Obama learns and adapts.

2010 a red flood?

We'll see. I stand by my assertion that sheer demographics, both age and race, are strangling the right.

4/05/2010 7:44 PM  
Anonymous Framer said...


What I see are a bunch of people who want or need to think that any opposition to them on policy must come from someplace evil or depraved. They fill in the bugaboo of their choice, whether it be racist, homophobic, anti-education, greedy capitalist, Duke fan, or whatever keeps them up worrying at night.

Obermann offers more slurs nightly than anything you will hear out of my group in the year we have been in operation. If you are looking for "diversity" we have that too. You know the background of Tammy Bruce, and should be aware that our MC for October and our keynote for next week is James T. Harris, who a quick google search of will prove he is not a racist. Both were chosen because of the message they offer and not because of their demographics.

Here is the reality. Your minority vote that showed up in 2008 is not going to materialize in the same way, because many quite frankly are disenchanted with what happened after the promise of the election. Obama and Democrats are hemorrhaging Independents. All indications show that the baseless racist smears are causing more damage.

I have spoken with some Democratic insiders (yeah don't let that get out too much, its bad for my rep) who have told me that Giffords is in serious trouble. She has become way to dependent upon PAC cash and it forced her into too many troublesome votes last year. She has burned bridges with many in the local media as well.

I received a Giffords internal poll call, and it asked three separate questions about my union involvement. If Gabby is spending that kind of effort gauging her union support, things aren't at all rosy. They also wanted to know how I felt about the Tea Party :)

As far as the overall "tsunami" it is undeniable. Look at the polling out there. Barbara freakin Boxer is only up two and there is Republican in Teddy Kennedy's seat. It is not going to be pretty for you all in November. Now can Obama pull a Clinton-like pivot and win in 2012? Possibly, but I haven't seen anything to suggest he has that type of thing in his skillset.

4/05/2010 9:33 PM  
Blogger The Navigator said...

What I just don't get is that no one in reality seems to be what you want. Reagan and Bush I & II were deficit disasters. Reagan was a deficit disaster. Do you deny that Republicans are debt fiends?

Who restored a surplus? Bill Clinton.

Republicans threw this nation off a cliff for finance giants and Cheney's war machine, and you seem to think Democrats drive our debt.

4/05/2010 9:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know about this Kos poll. McCain up by 15%?

I think your "McCain Metaphor" story more accurately reflects what's happening. McCain is now pathetic. The Arizona blogs you mention that support Hayworth can smell the blood.

I think Hayworth's an idiot, but McCain has to go. As you or someone in your comments said, it is past time for McCain to retire.

4/06/2010 6:07 AM  
Anonymous Framer said...


Newt Gingrich balanced the budget. Clinton was smart enough not to veto the budget.

And yes, Republicans have been spending way to much as well. If they get back into power and restart that garbage, we will pillory them as well, and twice as hard.

No amount of past sins can justify trillion dollar deficits per year into the near future. That is just silly.

See graph at the following link:

Do you think that has anything to do with the anger being felt by many? Or is it just racism and homophobia? You all need to be more honest with yourselves, and look beyond your biases.

4/06/2010 7:47 AM  
Blogger Sirocco said...


"Newt Gingrich balanced the budget. Clinton was smart enough not to veto the budget."

Not so. Clinton had no need to veto budget bills, since they ended up being generally identical to the ones he submitted.

Dems will certainly lose seats this fall. Whether it's a "tsunami" remains questionable.

Doesn't your point about the minority vote in 2008 compared to 2010 to some extent contradict your claims about Republican diversity?

4/06/2010 5:14 PM  
Anonymous RGuillory said...

right on.

4/06/2010 9:48 PM  
Anonymous Framer said...


Agree to disagree about the balanced budget. I have close friends who actually vote to split congress and the presidency because they figure that is the only way to slow the growth of government.

As far as 2008 goes, I would argue that what you saw was the high water mark for minority Democratic support. Minorities identified with the promise of Obama and many are disappointed. That does not necessarily mean that they will bleed to the Republican side, but they will have a more open mind on the issues. Some will become disillusioned altogether and not show up in 2010. Same thing happened to a lot of the Republican leaning independents the past few years. It happens.

The upshot is that if you are depending upon the 2008 minority voting advantage to slow Republican advances in 2010, and it appears that is the angle that Democrats are looking at even to the point of alienating independents, you are in trouble.

4/07/2010 9:04 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home