Friday, July 28, 2006

Poll Results for Lt. Governor

These are the pics KTHV used. No bias there, eh?

The first KTHV poll for the Lt. Governor's race is in. It shows Bill Halter leading Senator Jim Holt 48-39. Though this is the closest race polled and is inside the margin of error, so far it looks like a Democratic sweep.


In previous stories I have mentioned that the KTHV statewide polls seem to be slanted five points in favor of the Democrats. This poll confirms that theory. Jim Holt got 44% of the vote against incumbant Blanche Lincoln not two years ago. Does anyone really think that any sizable bloc that voted for Holt over Lincoln would turn around and vote for the relatively unknown Halter over Holt?

There have been three polls for Governor conducted, and the average of the other two is five points more favorable to the GOP than the KTHV poll. I believe their problem is that they have failed to distingush between two groups of women- single women who tend to vote democratic and married women with children who lean Republican. Perhaps they are counting the "woman vote" as a single block and then over sampling the single women. There are also indications that they oversampled the liberal 2nd district in order to get the numbers needed for that congressional race poll. The real numbers are probably more like 46 Halter and 42% Holt.

In order to win this race, Jim Holt is going to have to leave the thrid district. He is going to have to move to Little Rock or Jonesboro for the next three months and from there travel the state if he wants to win this election. He can out-campaign Halter in person, if he is out there. Holed up in Springdale, he can only sing to the choir. He can't outspend Halter- though it would be inexcusable for the GOP to once again fail to help him with fundraising. Against Blanche Lincoln, they might have been able to say they thought the race was unwinnable, this time it is the closest thing they have to a winnable race.

Many think that Halter will have the edge going down the home stretch because of his money. Not so. At least not as far as scaring people off of Holt. No politician in the state has had more attacks leveled against him than Jim Holt. Millions of dollars worth of column space have been directed against him. There is nothing Halter can do with any amount of money he can realisticall raise that could add to that. It would simply be another drop in a bucket that has a hole in it's side. It just won't fill up past that hole. Maybe if Halter had millions he could pour in enough "water" to temporarily get it past that hole, but relative to the amount of negative press, or "water", that has already been poured into that bucket, Halter can manage only a dribble. There are only so many people than can be scared off of Holt by media attacks, and they already have been.

On the other hand, Halter has a lot of votes in this poll that he will have a hard time keeping. For example the largest voting block, 41%, are conservatives. Halter has 21% of that vote, Holt 66%. Holt has only 10% of the self-identified liberal vote (which is much smaller than the conservative vote anyway). Does anyone really think that Halter is going to wind up taking a percentage of the conservative vote that is over twice as big as Holt's share of the liberal vote? Halter is the biggest liberal on the ticket, and (with the exception of maybe DeLay) Holt is the most conservative.

Halter has 50% of the rural vote compared to only 37% for Holt, yet Holt's record of support for rural voters is unsurpassed. Holt must do better with rural voters. Holt must convince 90% of the conservatives to vote for him- not the 66% he has now, and convince some of the moderates (he is down 67-23) that government tends to drift left so to get moderate government you need to elect conservatives to office. Can he improve in those two groups? Yes.


Blogger Jason Lovewell said...

Mark ,

What was Senator Holt Polling aganist Blanche during this same time pd in 04

4:53 PM, July 28, 2006  
Anonymous Robbie Bullock said...


Your hypothesis on the numbers would normally hold true but this is a poll of LIKELY voters. Many fiscal conservative voters are either going to stay home this fall or swallow their pride and vote Democratic because they are disillusioned by the Bush administrations borrow and spend policies. It's that simple.

4:55 PM, July 28, 2006  
Anonymous Robbie Bullock said...


I have to admit that the picture used was horrible. I don't know where they dug that one up but it does seem a bit biased. I, however, cannot apoligize after having to sit through Hannity and company over at Fox "news" Now that is real systematic bias.

5:24 PM, July 28, 2006  
Anonymous ThePatriot said...

So it's the middle of a long hot summer and our ticket is on the downside of one TV statiions "exclusive" polls. Other polls have been conducted, none made public, that have substantially different results than the robo-calls made by Survey USA. Point one is very critical; name identification is in favor of the Dems in both down ticket races (close to two million bucks in paid media between the two candidates of the Dem party)both Senator Holt and Gunner DeLay noted that fact at this point. I agree that Senator Holt, as well as Gunner DeLay, must spend 80 percent of the time between now and November out of 3rd district. DeLay is opening a Little Rock office in mid August, don't know any plans for Senator Holt in regard to that. Now on to the respetive challengers; Bill Clinton Halter and Dustin I said that but didn't mean it McDaniel. Holt and DeLay have to be agressive in educating voters on the positions of the respective opponents, in the case of Senator Holt, Halter is perhaps the most polar opposite I have ever seen in a general election. Gunner has a great ability to define opponents on legislative records, and McDaniels is ripe for the picking. $$$ will not be the difference maker in either race, regardless of the psychological mind set of long time Dem voters, both Senator Holt and Gunner DeLay have explosive issues that will knock down the supposed leads for both Halter and McDaniel. These races are much more exciting than Asa vs. Bebee, simply due to the genuine idealogical differences in the candidates. From my perspective the keys to victory will be in voters who identify themselves as independents, a number which is growing at a faster rate than both the GOP and Democrat voters. The races begin in earnest after Labor Day, when issues become a part of the mix in both these races, look for some real movement in the polls that seem to have replaced the good old fashioned know your candidates mentality of the everyday Arkansas voter a.k.a. as described on the AT blog, trailer trash voters. Strap on your seatbelts folks, these two races will be a wild ride.

5:46 PM, July 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Asa and Jim are running about the same. I think both of them are a couple of points down. We have the issues on our side, and they have the money. We need to all sing off the same page and drive home our message. We can have a great year if we will all cooperate.

6:20 PM, July 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, you're right, Holt should move out of the third district for the rest of the year. Never mind that he as a senator elected to represent that district!
So much for your theory that Holt is the biggest vote-getter for Republicans EVER in the state of Arkansas. 66% of Republicans are with him?--that's awful. All I ask is that when he loses, he'll please stop running so that someone can actually win a general election.

7:08 PM, July 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's way too early for that kind of talk, emily. Remember, you're going to have to eat those words girl.

8:03 PM, July 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with your point that Holt should move out of the third district. He should move to a small remote island in the south pacific.

8:19 PM, July 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I actually think he should move right next door to you.

8:31 PM, July 28, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

No Emily, I said 66% of self identified CONSERVATIVES are voting for him. That includes a lot of Democrats. Holt is getting over 90% of the Republican vote according to the poll.

8:43 PM, July 28, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Someone asked how Holt was doing against Lincoln at this point. He was polling at 30% only days before the election in which he got 44%.

8:45 PM, July 28, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...


I was aware that the poll was of LIKELY voters. The question is does their group of likely voters reflet the true makeup of the state or did they get most of them from the 2nd Congressional distrct (the most liberal one)? The other question is whether or not the pollsters took into account that the "woman vote" is actually split into two main groups and weight the poll accordingly.

The difference between a hyper-liberal "sex and the city" liberal woman and a woman who votes Republican is ten years, two kids, and one good husband.

None of those things are effected by "likely" vs "registered" voters.

I think you are right that Bush has a problem with conservatives, at least the real ones that are able to put down the pom poms long enough to consider his actual policies, but Holt has been a maverick who sometimes takes issue with the administration's policies.

9:05 PM, July 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Which of Bush's policies were you referring to that are a problem?

6:26 AM, July 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Asa has plenty of money to travel, buy media, and get his message out. If he and Jim would travel the state together, this would help them both. It sure worked at the "Jim and Jim" rally in the 1st district, and it would work elsewhere. I don't know what the rules are on appearing together in television ads as a team, but that might be helpful as well. We're all in this together.

6:27 AM, July 29, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

That is a good idea. I know that Asa is showing up at the "Jim and Jim" events. Even today Asa is coming to the "Jim and Jim" Catfish dinner in Chareslton. Maybe they could work something like that out. Why should they go to separate places drawing half the crowd at twice the expense when they could get both their supports and have twice the crowd at half the expense by doing it together?

7:36 AM, July 29, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Bush policies that are a problem with conservatives?

Well, government has grown faster than under Clinton- even non-defense spending. There has been no fiscal discipline.

In fact, he has loaded us down with the biggest new entitlement program since FDR with his "prescription drug" program. This is at least $400 billion more in unfunded liabilities for our children.

He is absolutley determined to ram amnesty for illegals down our throat no matter what we think about it. He constantly undermines efforts to secure the borders.

The "Patriot Act" has provisions that violate the 4th amendment. Classical liberals agree with classical conservaitves on this one and on...

The so-called campaign finance reform act that prevents citizens from critisizing federal politiicans by name 60 days before an election in ads. Bush said that he beleived it was unconstitutional and then signed it anyway!

He is using the military to "nation build" instead of defend our country.

This "North American Union" businesss is something few conservatives know about, but about all who do are against it.

He only even talks about our issues when it nears election time, in a bid to get votes that is so transparent that it grates.

I could think of more, but you get the idea.

Now when I say conservatives I mean real conservatives who want government limited in power and scope. There is a class of people who call themselves "conservatives" who are just pro-government near-fascists. These are hyper law-and-order types. They think it is OK for the government to violate your rights if it thinks you might be a "terrorist"- and the goverment is the one who gets to decide who a terrorist is.

7:49 AM, July 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're a terrorist, Mark ;)

8:35 AM, July 29, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

"It is dangerous to be right when your government is wrong!"

8:55 AM, July 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bush policies that are a problem with conservatives?


Okay, Mark, but besides all that stuff...

Heh, heh. It's sad, really.

3:49 PM, July 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thats all on the national level, but these races are on a more local level. Conservatives will turn out to help the state. If they wanted to get back at the president they would do it on a national office (like congressman), but not a state level. And as we have seen there is plenty of issues to motivate the conservative in Arkansas, if we can get the message out.

6:44 PM, July 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, I will agree on those issues you mentioned on which the President has abandoned his conservative principles, but on issues like the economy and national defense, I think he's dead on. We've seen that the tax cuts have helped the economy tremendously and we haven't had another terrorist attack in this country since 9/11. The military has taken out Sadaam and the US military along with Iraqi forces have taken out Zarqawi. So I definitely think he's done a good job with keeping the country safe from another terrorist attack. This is more than we can say for the Democrats. But yeah, I agree that spending has gotten WAY out of hand. I'm glad to see that a few of the Republicans in Congress have realized this and tried to cut spending some and that the president has called for the line item veto on spending. Of course, thanks to the American people that called both Congress and him out on it.
I was actually thrilled with what the House Republicans did the end of this past week with the minimum wage bill with attaching the increase to a bill that would also get rid of the estate tax. This puts the Dems on the ropes because they won't vote to get rid of the tax (if they did, the whole world would stop and it would make front page news in every single paper across the country) by not doing this, they will also be voting not to raise the minimum wage, which doesn't need to be done in the first place. And speaking of this bill....if the Democrats keep complaining about "tax cuts for the rich", wouldn't raising the minimum wage make some people richer since they'll have more money? And given that the Democrats are supposedly for the "little guy" and the "little guy" is the one that would benefit the most from the minimum wage increase, wouldn't a tax cut also benefit the "little guy"? Just more Democrat hypocrisy.

7:20 PM, July 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

National defense? I think not. He's more interested in the defense of other nations no matter how remote their welfare is related to ours. Do you consider the dissolving of our borders and the willful allowance of tens of millions of foreigners into our country as sticking up for our national defense?

No- Bush is a traitor to our sovereignty. Stop drinking the kool aid and think like a patriot instead of a just a republican.

9:06 PM, July 29, 2006  
Anonymous Mark Moore said...

I am glad for tax cuts, but without SPENDING REDUCTIONS the tax cuts are nothing more than a bigger tax increase in the future- unless your spurred growth from the tax cuts enables you to eliminate the deficit. We are not their. We have to add more debt to spur growth and the amount of growth we get per unit of new debt is shrinking.

No, tax cuts alone are not conservative fiscal policy for this simple reason: borrowing and spending is no more conservative than taxing and spedning.

As for Iraq, if we are there to defeat defeat Saddam then our military has done the job and it is time to bring them home, if they are there to nation build then they are doing something that it is not possible to do without virtue in the populace and so they should also be brought home. The "Islamic Republic of Iraq" is not worth the life of one more Iowa farm boy.

I don't think we have gotten our money's worth in Iraq. Saddam was not behind 911 and he killed the same morons that we are now having to kill.

Foreign adventurism has never been considered "conservative". A strong defense and competent war against those who attack us is the classic conservative position. Going around the world sticking out troops in every mudhole on earth and never bringing them back under the auspecies of some UN resolution is the opposite of that.

6:19 AM, July 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some things never change. You used to say I was "Emily" and now you're doing it to someone else. I was told that I was still being blamed for things, but I didn't believe it until I saw it myself. I haven't posted one thing since the primary, but I'm still getting blamed for things. Do a better job of tracking next time.

8:19 said: "I agree with your point that Holt should move out of the third district. He should move to a small remote island in the south pacific." What do you have against the people in the south pacific? I don't think they deserve that. (Sorry, I couldn't resist. 2 months is a long time to go without bashing Holt. That felt good). Goodbye again.

3:39 PM, July 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I haven't posted one thing since the primary...

Emily, do you lie in order to fool yourself? Which one of the "several guys" in the computer lab in Rogers are you pretending to be today?

Perhaps you need some professional help!

8:29 PM, July 31, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps you, as a man (married at that) need to stop being so obsessed with Emily! Why is it that every time someone disagrees with you, you blame it on some girl named Emily? A Lot of people disagree with you--Jim Holt even fired you! Grow up and allow different points of views!

7:13 AM, August 01, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your obsession with this old thread is evidence enough, even for those without the means to verify your identity as AW's regular contributor of slanderous swill.

Did I miss the press release where the Holt campaign stated that they had fired Mark? I believe you're lying again, Emily. But that's like saying "the sky is blue!"

7:34 AM, August 01, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who's lying? I'm not Emily, and it's driving you crazy. Now move on.

1:54 PM, August 01, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Um, you're free to stop posting here as well, girl! Funny seeing you here, though, as you supposedly haven't posted since the primary yet somehow manage to respond to every post where your name appears.

I agree with your point that Holt should move out of the third district.

Ha ha- what a schizo! You're funny!

3:54 PM, August 01, 2006  
Blogger Mr. Toast said...

Why hurl those nasty insults at Mark? What did he do to you? I can tell you right now that he didn't post anything on this thread that doesn't have his name as the handle.

4:10 PM, August 01, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I saw what she wrote before you deleted it, Toast! These people are nasty mean!

4:15 PM, August 01, 2006  
Blogger Mr. Toast said...

She's mean, and clueless.

8:10 AM, August 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9:29 AM, February 03, 2013  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11:30 AM, February 03, 2013  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home