The national media’s obsession with Rand Paul has been a blessing for his opponent Jack Conway.
38% of Kentucky voters are less likely to vote for Paul because of the coverage. 29% are more likely and 33% report that the national media had made no difference in their opinion. 42% of Kentucky voters believe that the national media has been generally unfair to Paul. The national media, not his campaign, has shaped Paul’s image and message.
The majority of voters in Kentucky are voting for or against Paul not for Conway. Most voters don’t have an opinion of Conway, 40% of voters have yet to form an opinion of Conway in comparison with the 24% of voters who are unsure of their opinion of Paul. Still in a horse race Conway and Paul are neck and neck: 42:42. Conway could just as likely be any unnamed competitor and would likely receive relatively the same amount of support.
The national media has highlighted Rand Paul’s divisive personality and platform. Kentucky voters are not choosing between two candidates but voting one up or down. Elections like these can be worrisome—defensive voters may end up with someone they don’t know with an agenda they don’t support.
In order to secure his chance for a successful outcome, Conway needs to gain support based on his own merits. Voters need to know Conway and his platform. Paul’s media attention has made his name and message clear to the majority of Kentucky voters. With so many people unsure of their opinion of Conway (including 35% of Democrats), he has the ability to shape opinions and earn votes. If Conway can get his message out he has the opportunity to seize the undecided voter to ultimately beat Paul.
For the full Kentucky Senate Poll go here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
The problem for Jack Conway is:
His own merits include standing shoulder-to-shoulder with George Bush on The War in Iraq, The Patriot Act and the failed Drug War.
Not to mention he is running in a conservative state and Conway is prochoice and supports adding gay rights to the Civil Rights Act.
The problem here is that Conway's positions suck.
LOL. Keep dreaming. Paul is ahead by 7 point in the polling average. PPP is an outlier that consistently shows Paul doing worse than all other public pollsters.
It's not so much that the national media have made Rand Paul a story as it is that Rand Paul has made himself a story. He's freely ceded the middle ground to his opponent and effectively declared that he thinks he can win by running solely from the extreme right. There are states like Utah where it's commonly accepted that this is a viable political practice, but Paul and his other Tea Party cronies are putting it to the test in states where extremism has not sunk its roots so deep. In effect, they're betting that the country has become polarized enough to win with nothing but base support in a low-turnout election.
The problem that Paul, Angle, Buck, and Rubio are revealing is that the antics they need to engage in to keep their supporters enthused can't stay private; they've mobilized Democrats and alienated moderates (who generally mean "don't want big changes" when they call themselves conservatives - ironically making the Democrats the safer, more conservative pick in all those races, the ones calling for less radical changes to American society). They compound their difficulties further by taking stands heavily at odds with their states - Angle's opposition to alcohol in a state where Las Vegas makes up much of the voting population, Paul's opposition to farm subsidies in a state with heavy dependence on agriculture, Ken Buck's embrace of the racist Tancredo in a state with a rapidly-growing non-Caucasian population, and Rubio's stubborn embrace of offshore oil drilling right when Florida is seeing half of its beaches blackened from the BP spill.
NRH,
I don't know what planet you're living on, or where you lost some of your brain matter, but if you truely think that your little dreamland scenarios represent any assemblance to reality, then all I can say is.....earth to NRH.....earth to NRH.....oh well, I guess nobody's home! Good Lord man, GET REAL!
So some anonymous idiot wants to claim that the Tea Partiers *aren't* running as conservatives, or that Rand Paul hasn't objected to farm subsidies, or that Sharron Angle didn't say she opposes alcohol, or that Ken Buck hasn't had to 'clarify' his embrace of Tancredo, or that Rubio hasn't come out in favor of offshore drilling? Or that the teabagger candidates derided their primary opponents as not conservative enough? When you run to the extremes and then don't moderate your positions in the general, that's ceding the center. And there's certainly no question that the wild-eyed radical teabaggers are calling for larger and more abrupt changes to American society than their Democratic opponents.
You could make an argument that their right-wing positions will prove popular, or that their tactics will work, but that doesn't address the main point - Rand Paul has made himself the story by going with unusual tactics that represent a much larger gamble than running a more traditional candidate. Grayson, Crist, Specter, and Norton would all be comfortably ahead right now, while the teabagger candidates have brought the races back down to competitive status.
To NRH,
1. Why is it "extreme" to believe that taxpayers shouldn't be fleeced to give corporate welfare to agricultural corporations?
2. Haven't you noticed that Charlie Crist is slightly ahead of Marco Rubio right now? Basically, your argument is that unless Republicans nominate "moderates" like Charlie Crist, "moderates" like Charlie Crist will win the election, which is nonsensical.
3. Why do you demonize figures like Rand Paul and Sharron Angle when their opponents, Jack Conway and Harry Reid, supported the PATRIOT Act, the Iraq War, and continue to support funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Democrats realize when they donate to Rand they are, in the long run, better off.
The national media has INVENTED the MYTH of a "divisive personality". Rand Paul is a principled leader that America would be fortunate to see elected.
NRH, if you think ANY of the tea party's positions are "extreme" then you SERIOUSLY need a history lesson.
10 Reasons Why The Rand Paul Victory In Kentucky Is So Important
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/10-reasons-why-the-rand-paul-victory-in-kentucky-is-so-important
I can tell you from some of the conversations I've had that most Paul opponents saw this coming--that once Paul got out of the primary gate, the previously benign media would suddenly start dishing out all the dirt they had been saving up.
It seems Grayson's supporters have been proven correct, at least on this point.
Thomas:
"His own merits include standing shoulder-to-shoulder with George Bush on The War in Iraq, The Patriot Act and the failed Drug War."
I hate to burst your bubble, but a huge majority of Republicans supports the War in Iraq, the Patriot Act, and the War on Drugs. And with Kentucky being a red state, I shouldn't have to explain to you what that means.
I'm disqualifying Washington from consideration this week. Unfortunately there were problems with people gaming the blogger poll application too. Does anyone know of anything we could use for these that people would not be able to cheat? If this continues to happen we're just going to stop doing these votes.
Christian Liberty,
The federal government cannot interfere in financial related issues but can in others? (abortion, etc) I tend to think the fed. government shouldn't be involved in social issues either.
Also would you say it is most important to elect Sharron Angle, Buck, or Paul? (Obviously all of them, but focusing on one in particular)
(1) Abortion is NOT a "social issue" and (2) on the federalism issue, I agree that the federal government should not be involved. The federal government SHOULD GET OUT OF THE WAY!! Specifically that means, the federal government should overturn Roe v Wade and all other pro-abortion precedent and return the 10th amendment rights to the states; allow states to prosecute abortion as a homicide under existing homicide statutes or other state laws, as many of the states wished to do before the tyranny of the Supreme Court demanded that states could not pursue justice for unborn children... children who were murdered by the means of a medical licence and scalpel.
Abortion is not a "social issue"... Abotion is MURDER! Justice demands that abortion must be prosecuted just like any other act of homicide. It only becomes a "social issue" when politicians, bureaucrats, and law enforcement take it upon themselves to decide when they will and will not uphold the law (unequal protection under the law). Will they only protect human life after a living human being has been "born" rather than protect life from conception? That political grandstanding and catering to the hedonistic, narcissistic left is what makes something as commonsense as protecting human life a "social issue".
Just like the federal government's willful refusal to enforce existing immigration law is what makes immigration a "social issue", the federal government's attempts to encourage abortion and block any means to protect innocent life is what makes it a "social issue". It should be a commonsense idea. Human life is to be protected from the moment of conception by equal protection under existing state law.
The most basic duty of government is to ensure safety and security and punish crime. The most basic duty of government is to prosecute all crime, including the premeditated murder of the most innocent and most defenseless, those waiting to be born.
But, suppose that reasonable people can disagree on the extent to which human life must be protected by the police power of the government. Under our constitution, that is a decision that should be left up to each individual state. It is tyrannical for the Supreme Court to decide (Roe v Wade) that the federal government can arbitrarily dictate whether or not states are even allowed to investigate and prosecute a known infanticide. That is the right of the state and it is unconstitutional and tyrannical for the Supreme Court (or any agent of the federal government) to block the states' right and duty to prosecute homicide and protect innocent human life. Abortion is homicide and should be prosecuted by the state as a premeditated homicide.
So in summary, I do not see protecting human life from conception as being contrary to limited constitutional government, state sovereignty, and federalism. It was the intrusion of the federal government into state sovereignty that allowed abortionists to have no fear of justice in the first place. All that is really required is for the federal government to get out of the way of the states (i.e. strike down Roe v Wade, Casey v Planned Parenthood, etc.) and cut off all taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion extremist groups. Limited, constitutional government and pro-life protections of innocent children can coexist.
...
...But, suppose that reasonable people can disagree on the extent to which human life must be protected by the police power of the government. Under our constitution, that is a decision that should be left up to each individual state. It is tyrannical for the Supreme Court to decide (Roe v Wade) that the federal government can arbitrarily dictate whether or not states are even allowed to investigate and prosecute a known infanticide. That is the right of the state and it is unconstitutional and tyrannical for the Supreme Court (or any agent of the federal government) to block the states' right and duty to prosecute homicide and protect innocent human life. Abortion is homicide and should be prosecuted by the state as a premeditated homicide.
It was the intrusion of the federal government into state sovereignty that allowed abortionists to have no fear of justice in the first place. All that is really required is for the federal government to get out of the way of the states (i.e. strike down Roe v Wade, Casey v Planned Parenthood, etc.) and cut off all taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion extremist groups. Constitutionally limited government and pro-life protections of innocent children can coexist.
...
...But the race I would most want to win is Sharron Angle defeating Harry Reid. Reid has become a far-left radical; his words and deeds have become completely unhinged from reality, his constitutional oath, and his constituents. He should be separated from office to send a message to the radical Democratic party. Just like Daschle became vulnerable when he assumed Senate leadership and became more extreme in his rhetoric and tactics, the extreme rhetoric of Harry Reid (comparing opposition to socialist healthcare with segragation) and tactics (ramming Obamacare down our throats on Christmas Eve after first having to bribe numerous members of his own party with taxpayer money). A lot of former Democrats and independents woke up and saw the light when Reid rammed this rationing bill down our throats. The tyrant of the senate should be given a pink slip to match the millions of jobs his wasteful stimulus and corrupt regulation has destroyed in this once-great nation.
Angle would also be solid on many of the most important issues. Her leadership on privatizing social(ist) (in)security could prove invaluable. She is solidly pro-life. She has led on reducing taxes and cutting spending. Sharron Angle represents the most dramatic improvement over her opponent of perhaps any race on the ballot nationwide.
...Angle, Buck, or Paul?
Interesting question.
Ken Buck would contribute great experience and expertise in law enforcement and judicial issues. From what I can tell, he is solid on enforcing immigration laws (unlike some in Washington), protecting life, and otherwise keeping government within its proper limits. Even the Huffington Post now concedes that Buck, not Norton, is the strongest candidate in the race.
Rand Paul's courageous stances on reducing the federal government's role in agriculture and education and his position favoring a less interventionist foreign policy may be just what the Republican party needs to become more consistently a limited government party that can responsibly govern within our means, with less distortions compromising the dynamism and integrity of the private economy.
Yet, as much as I would like to see Rand Paul elected, Conway wouldn't be the worst Democrat to be stuck with. It might be amusing to see leftists become infuriated with another Ben Nelson.
But the race I would most want to win is Sharron Angle defeating Harry Reid. Reid has become a far-left radical; his words and deeds have become completely unhinged from reality, his constitutional oath, and his constituents. He should be separated from office to send a message to the radical Democratic party. Just like Daschle became vulnerable when he assumed Senate leadership and became more extreme in his rhetoric and tactics, the extreme rhetoric of Harry Reid (comparing opposition to socialist healthcare with segragation) and tactics (ramming Obamacare down our throats on Christmas Eve after first having to bribe numerous members of his own party with taxpayer money). A lot of former Democrats and independents woke up and saw the light when Reid rammed this rationing bill down our throats. The tyrant of the senate should be given a pink slip to match the millions of jobs his wasteful stimulus and corrupt regulation has destroyed in this once-great nation.
Angle would also be solid on many of the most important issues. Her leadership on privatizing social(ist) (in)security could prove invaluable. She is solidly pro-life. She has led on reducing taxes and cutting spending. Sharron Angle represents the most dramatic improvement over her opponent of perhaps any race on the ballot nationwide.
Well the problem is nobody knows anything about Jack CONway and that's how he's going to try and keep it. Cap and trade, support of Obamacare, adding gay rights to the civil rights act, against Kentucky coal, pro-choice the list can go on. Conway is a very far left liberal on the level of Obama running in a very conservative state against a very conservative candidate, Rand Paul. Good luck!
Christian Liberty:
"Rand Paul's courageous stances on reducing the federal government's role in agriculture and education and his position favoring a less interventionist foreign policy may be just what the Republican party needs to become more consistently a limited government party that can responsibly govern within our means, with less distortions compromising the dynamism and integrity of the private economy."
Among the rumored attributes swirling around Rand Paul, "doesn't play well with others" is one.
It's already clear that Paul doesn't have the support of the national Republican Party.
I think it's quite possible that, if elected, Rand Paul could end up being little more than a pariah to his colleagues in the Senate.
Interesting Times,
"I think it's quite possible that, if elected, Rand Paul could end up being little more than a pariah to his colleagues in the Senate."
Is that any different than Senator Bunning, whom he would replace?
Rand Paul may be a voice in the wilderness, but he would certainly be preferable to a Democrat who would support the Obama-Durbin agenda. (Reid, of course, would be gone next year.)
After being unfairly attacked by the national media, Rand Paul is quickly becoming a better campaigner.
http://article.nationalreview.com/438055/the-reeducation-of-rand-paul/robert-costa?page=1
Fortunately, Americans tend to understand that an ineffective voice in the wilderness is not worth the loss of federal influence that comes with outcast status and an increasingly-bizarre ideology. In a state that a sane Republican could win in a walk, the trustworthy (i.e. non-Ras) polling in Kentucky has a small Conway lead. Even Ras, for that matter, has seen Paul lose 18 points of his one-time claimed lead. Similarly, even R-leaning Ras has shown Senator Reid cutting his deficit by two-thirds against the hilariously-inept Angle, down to well inside the margin of error. The more Americans learn about the radical changes teabagger candidates want to make to American society, the more they turn back to the safe, sane, sensible Democrats.
Further evidence of the shamelessness and corruption of Conway and Democrats: fundraising in Canada for elections in the US.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/07/13/democrats-go-to-canada-its-a-fundraising-excursion/
Post a Comment