Monday, September 04, 2006

Biggest Poll Yet From Roby Brock

Roby Brock (host of Business Talk) has announced the results of the biggest poll yet on the top three races on the ballot. Over 1000 likely voters were interviewed and the methodology for this one was transparent and rock solid (except it somewhat under-represents the 3rd district). This is in contrast to some recent polls that used a smaller sample size and questionable or undefined polling methods (note: SURVEY USA has cleared up many of the questions I had about their methods).

The result is that there is not much good news for Republicans, but here are the results...

Ballot Question 1 (College Bonds that have been roundly critisized on this board)

Yes: 31%
No : 40%
Undecided: 29%

Governor

Hutchinson: 34%
Beebe : 48%
Lendall : 1%
Bryan : 0%
Undecided : 17%

Lt. Governor

Halter : 44%
Holt : 40%
Undecided: 16%
THIS RACE IS WITHIN THE 3.1% margin of error

Attorney General

McDaniel : 51%
DeLay : 37%
Undecided : 12%

20 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Holt is polling higher than Asa. I wonder what exactly that means. Surely, Asa doesn't have as many negatives as Holt has had foisted upon him by the mainstream media. That is not even to mention the ugly primary that Holt just went through.

Halter should be higher than that just because he has a "D" after his name. If I weren't reluctant to sell Holt short as I have been inclined to do in the past, I would just say that Bebee is just a much stronger candidate than Halter. Objectively, it appears that Holt is instead the strongest candidate on the Republican ticket. I think that it is clear that he can get at least 40%, but can he get 51%? And will that extra 11% require that he compromise his positions alittle? If it did, would he do it? What areas could he soften on and still keep his base? Even doing so would probably not reward him with more votes, so I hope he doesn't.

This is a problem with the political system (perhaps life in general). It forces pragmatism to obtain a majority, but fails to represent the single largest block voters overall because together they are still a minority. Third parties don't even solve the problem, it only seems to make it worse. Take Europe for example.

Ultimately we are going to have to win more hearts and minds OUTSIDE of the political system so that this "strong minority" can become a majority. That seems like an impossible task in today's culture.

I guess it is true, the American system is the worst form of government in the world except for all the others.

3:02 PM, September 04, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You want him to soften his positions? Why, so he can be like the other guys that are getting their clocks cleaned? You don't get it, he does not compromise, that is why he is doing better. He actaully takes positions that are strong. You may not always like what he says, but at least he is telling you something.

Pragmatism is not helping the other guys. Escape from the box you have put your mind in. Heck yes he can win. they need to back him with $$$$$.

6:12 PM, September 04, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Beebe is a stronger candidate than Halter, but is he really a good candidate? He has run a bumbling campaign. He has never had opposition before and it shows. I'd say neither of them are good candidates, but there is an anti-Bush mood out there in swing voter land. Holt is the one that most has his own independent ID and has a rep. for being willing to buck his party. Sort of a maverick.

6:36 PM, September 04, 2006  
Blogger Mr. Toast said...

This is a problem with the political system... It forces pragmatism to obtain a majority, but fails to represent the single largest block voters overall because together they are still a minority. Third parties don't even solve the problem, it only seems to make it worse. Take Europe for example.

Yes, I'd love to talk about Europe as an example of why you think third parties can't help the situation. Big government liberals don't like fractured power, that's true, but the only thing that makes conservatives happier than a government without a majority party is when the congress is altogether out of session!

Speaking of which, they're baaaaaack...

7:41 PM, September 04, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Some people are asking if it is over in the Governor's and AG races. Heck no.

The Republican strategy is to look for rural swing voters. Those are going to tend to be the last ones to get the facts. Also, the GOP has a far superior information database to target swing voters. The Dem ticket really is secular and liberal and more time to get those facts out will only help the GOP.

What we don't know yet is how much of each person's support is deep support that will not be swayed. Even Beebe's total support is not 50%+1+margin of error (nor is McDaniels). Until he gets there it is ridiculous to talk about the race being over.

I tell you the GOP should use their database to make up a file of every voter in the 2nd district and Washington county who votes liberal and is supportive of the environment and gay rights issues. Then they should find a way to get that info to the Lendall campaign so the guy can do a targeted mailout. Some of that huge undecided vote is hesitating between Lendall and Beebe. If they go Lendall, Hutchinson can still win it.

The AG race is more in the hands of the media. Neither candidate has the money to get their own message out with their own money.

8:16 PM, September 04, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not buying that Asa is that far down in the polls when both Asa and Beebe's own polls show this race as being neck and neck.

8:31 PM, September 04, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Clinton is coming in to town to put another notch in his belt: He is after Asa Hutchinson, just as he has conscientiously and deliberately gone after all of the other impeachment managers. Managed to unseat a Republican in a House race in California, among others, so far.

BEWARE BIG BILL when he comes to town, cause he don't fool around.

8:31 PM, September 04, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Big Bill fools around plenty. Hillary can't trust him as far as she can kick his fat glutes.

As for the poll, the one that showed it close was taken a while back, before Beebe dropped a cool million into TV ads. I do think the 3rd was slightly under represented, but let's not indulge ourselves in fantasy. The poll may lean democratic four or five points, but Hutchinson and DeLay are behind by double digits or close to it.

8:35 PM, September 04, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Holt 40%
DeLay 37%
Hutchinson 34%

Look like Asa is dragging down the ticket. Maybe now his staff will eat their words for dissing Holt.

11:35 PM, September 04, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Toast,

A two party system allows the voters to directly decide on and form the majority "coalition" BEFORE they vote on it. In a multi-party system, you elect the politicians you want, then the politicians go to their secret rooms and put together their majority coalition under a cloak of secrecy that is not evaluated by the voters.

Additionally, the power structure then becomes a conglomerate of special interest politicians that sacrifice all other principles to get "their share" of the public trough. If you think that ultimate power structure becomes "fractured" to the benefit of Constitutional principals rather than special interests, then you underestimate the extent of human depravity and the unifying power corporate money.

Enough of an explanation?

Wake up America!

12:04 AM, September 05, 2006  
Anonymous Mark Moore said...

C'mon,

It is time to get past all that "drag down the ticket stuff". Asa's people were strictly neutral in that primary.

Asa is not the drag on the ticket. Bush is. Bush may be a bigger drag on Asa than on Holt because it is well known how independent Holt is and that he has clashed with the administration on numerous issues. It is just a tough year to be a Republican.

6:28 AM, September 05, 2006  
Blogger Mr. Toast said...

A two party system allows the voters to directly decide on and form the majority "coalition" BEFORE they vote on it. In a multi-party system, you elect the politicians you want, then the politicians go to their secret rooms and put together their majority coalition under a cloak of secrecy that is not evaluated by the voters.

Nonsense- with multi-party systems, coalitions are built around certain issues, not elections. And those parties who meet in "secret rooms" to become surrogates of another party can simply be voted out in the next election in favor of a truly independent party. There is NO such choice in the two-party system-- we get the same lousy two parties no matter what they do.

And the idea that the voters choose the majority in a two-party system is, frankly, baloney. On average, over fifty percent of state elections in this country are uncontested-- there is NO choice. In Arkansas in '04, over 70% of state legislative races were unopposed. So much for voters deciding on the majority coalition in the current system.

Additionally, the power structure then becomes a conglomerate of special interest politicians that sacrifice all other principles to get "their share" of the public trough

We know that such isn't the case at the moment, don't we? Get real!

Why is it the ones yelling "wake up" are usually the ones most sound asleep?

7:42 AM, September 05, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whether we have a multi party or two party system is irrelevant if the quality and character of the candidates (and the nation) do not improve.

A system will always fail if those who administer it are not honorable.

William Penn (I believe it was) thought that he could draft Pennsylvania's constitution so that it would always work. In other words he focused on the system (which, is important by all means)and attempted to make the laws of the state impeccable.

Meanwhile drafters of other state's constitutions (my history is a little fuzzy but I believe it was Robert Locke) said that the focus should be on the character of the people in government because if the men who administer the laws are good then the laws cannot be bad but if the men who administer the laws are bad the laws cannot be good (paraphrasing).

So quibbling about the form, while somewhat useful, is not the true issue which will improve our republic. It is the quality and character of the politicians.

If we had enough honorable men to populate the Republican party, for instance, then we could return to our Constitutional principles which have slipped away due to less than honorable men (not because the system was itself flawed, necessarily, because all systems are flawed if the men who administer them are dishonorable).

11:12 AM, September 05, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Carry on smartly then Mr. Toast. Since your wisdom so far surpasses all the generations of Americans including that of the Founding Fathers and the writers of the Constitution that you hold dear, then I would not dare to disagree with you. My apologies for daring to disagree. Where is it that you would have me to report for my immediate termination?

11:16 AM, September 05, 2006  
Blogger Mr. Toast said...

FYI, the nation started out with a multi-party system. Perhaps you should read federalist paper #10 to understand why. We didn't inherit the two-party system until the early 1900's, though in practice it occured shortly after the Civil War.

Your implication that "the Founding Fathers" supported our current two-party system is not only incorrect, it's entirely backwards.

11:27 AM, September 05, 2006  
Blogger Mr. Toast said...

By the way, I'm using the term "multi-party" in the narrow sense that all parties are allowed to compete on a level playing field: no gathering signatures to get on the ballot, no jumping through hoops that the Republicrats don't have to jump through.

Interestingly enough, even with the party equality that existed during the first century of the United States, there has always been two dominanting parties. This is what is refered to as a two-party system in the classic sense of the term. I'm assuming that you're not refering to that definition, because, today, a two-party system means that you squash any reasonable challenge to the Republicrats by keeping legislative hurdles between all minor parties and the ballot.

The difference in the classic "two party system" and today's protectionist two-party system is best illustrated in that, before the Civil War, a major party might collapse and be replaced by a new party-- this happened four times-- whereas we haven't had a new major party since the Civil War.

11:49 AM, September 05, 2006  
Blogger Mr. Toast said...

11:12, I agree that it is needful to mind the character of our nation's leaders, but that is not mutually exclusive to repairing the broken system-- and it IS broken.

There's a balance. You may feel that you are best suited to focus on the "quality and character of the politicians" /people, and that's admirable. I may feel more inclined to focus on the failures of the current system and advocate for improvements. That doesn't necessarily mean that either of us is doing something wrong. In fact, we are truly in error when we marginalize the efforts of those working toward the same goal just because they aren't working in exactly the same way we feel is most important.

Would you consider the work of William Penn on the PA constitution to have been a waste of his time?

11:57 AM, September 05, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, and I referenced in my posting that the form of government is indeed important. But I believe that if the character of the men in office is bad then no system will work to preserve our God given liberties.

Therefore, I believe that the true solution is not changing the form but rather the makeup of the character of the men in office.

If we have the same caliber of representatives that we have now, no matter the form of government, we will be in the same shape.

How do we work to improve the character of the nation. That is a broad topic that there is not a singular or easy answer to. Morevoer it is beyond my expertise. But certainly with prayer and with enough honest people working toward that goal, anything is possible.

12:07 PM, September 05, 2006  
Anonymous unowho said...

You are both right, you just have different priorities. You are focusing on flaws in men, and Toast is focusing on flaws in the system. There are lots of flaws in both to go around.

In fact, it may be flaws in the system that keep OUT better men, so the two would work hand in hand. Improving the system in ways that improve the men in it.

We need a thread on this subject. Toast, why not post an ariticle about it?

12:23 PM, September 05, 2006  
Blogger Mr. Toast said...

Thank you! I'll do one soon; sorry for hijacking the thread!

In fact, it may be flaws in the system that keep OUT better men...

Great point: One of the reasons you'll not get good men in office nowadays is because the system is so bad. Think about it, do you believe that America has only one or two good men left? Of course not, but few rational people with integrity are willing to have their lives-- and those of their families-- trashed just to buck the system, expose the corrupt party hacks, and do the dirty work necessary to get elected within the corrupt Republican/Democrat parties. They want to improve the nation, not engage in inner-party squabbling.

We need to offer people political parties that can assist them in their desire to improve our government. Theoretically we are currently able to do it, but practically it is impossible due to the many creative restrictions placed upon minor parties throughout the nation.

12:28 PM, September 05, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home