Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

AZ: McCain 52 Hayworth 40 (Rasmussen 5/17)

Topics: Arizona , poll

Rasmussen
5/17/10; 541 likely Republican primary voters, 4% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

Arizona

2010 Senate: Republican Primary
52% McCain, 40% Hayworth (chart)

 

Comments
melvin:

Rasmussen poll is a joke,if the Democrats is going to lose all those house seats in November then why couldnt the Gop win a district where the white vote was 92%,in Obama approval ratings is about 35%,this is all BS,the right-wing pollsters are flat outliars,in Penn12 only proves that,the media anit reporting that the democrat got 95% of the latino vote,which in 2008 only gave Obama 52% of their vote in this district,this is very troubling for the Gop,because the latino vote is going to be bigger in some districts that the gop was hoping to win,but when u have 95% of latinos voting against the Gop,along with 95% of blacks,i predict the Republicans is only going to pickup between 12-16 seats and only 5 Senate seats.Pollsters like Rasmussen is not polling minorities at all,that is why i dont beleive an outliar like Rasmussen or any other right-wing pollster.

____________________

Fred:

melvin,

The democrat who won ran as anti-obama and anti-healthcare. It's a conservative democratic district. If this guy ran as being anti-obama, then it was almost as if 2 republicans were running. people are anti-obama and anti-healthcare and anti-incumbents this year in districts like these. They aren't necessarily anti-democrat

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

McCain is trouncing Hayworth!!

PA-12 was a must win for the Republicans. If they can't win a district that voted for McCain in 2008, a district that is 95% white and older, then they can't win much else.

____________________

Bob in SJ:

A Hayworth win would be best for the Democrats, as Glasman polls best agaisnt him. But a rough primary campaign could wound McCain for the general.

Ulimately, though, I don't think a Democrat can win statewide Arizona this year, given the political climate.

____________________

Fred:

shannon...........please do research before posting comments. The dem who ran in pa-12 is anti-healthcare, anti-obama, and ran as if he almost was a republican. I'm from PA. I know this. Really conservative democrats aren't the ones in danger in districts like these. It's the ones who supported HCR who are in danger. PA-12 has been a democratic stronghold for 30 years. It's white DEMOCRATS who live there. Dems outnumber republicans 2-1 in that district.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Yup, Critz is pro-life, pro-second amendment. Plus, the district is 2-1 dem registration. So if a dem had to win, Critz would be my choice.

____________________

Bob in SJ:

@ Fred

PA-12 was one of the few districts that flipped from Kerry to McCain in 2008.

And the NRCC is a million dollars poorer after PA-12 with nothing to show for it. It'll take that result.

I'm quite confident that the Dems will hold the house now. The NRCC has no money.

____________________

Bob in SJ:

@FM

The Dems truly have a big-tent philisophy, I must say.

____________________

Sean Murphy:

Bob most people probably contribute to individual candidates rather than contributing to the NRCC,NRSC,DCCC or DSC.

Melvin:

Aren't you the goofball that was saying the GOP was going to win last night due to come kooky conspiracy of switching votes?

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I have said it before and I keep saying it again. The thing I really hate about Senate and house campaigns is the whole idea of "running against Washington". Both parties use this strategy and it works for the short-term, but it is misleading. I think the GOP uses it moreso than the Democrats, because they claim they want "less government" which in reality only happens with just a few of them.

I keep saying to myself, why the hell would you want to run against Washington, and go to the very place you hate? It just seems pointless to me. I don't care of a Maine Potato farmer gets elected to congress and has never left his state, as soon as he goes to Washington, and puts on the suit and tie, he is now part of the system!

The only time I think the strategy makes sense is when a Governor who has never worked in washington runs for president. I think they tend to have an upper hand over a Vice president or US Senator. That is one reason Bill Clinton won in 1992. Howard Dean tried in 2004 to run against John Kerry with a populist, non Washington message and that didn't go so well.

I heard that the Popular GOP Gubernatorial candidate, Dino Rossi, didn't run for senate this year, because he had been quoted for hating Washington DC and calling it a stinkhole of a town. I honestly couldn't blame him.

____________________

Bob in SJ:

@ Sean

That is true, but committies have the ability to help endangered incumbents or raise up emerging candidates. And people do donate a great deal of money to the DCCC.

It also appears that the NRCC has trouble recruiting strong candidates for these specials, like Tedisco in NY-20, Scosafava in NY-23, and now Burns in PA-12 (he barely squeaked by in the concurrent primary). The DCCC has been very good at finding candidates that were the right fit for their respective districts: Murphy, Owens and not Critz.

If Burns had won, I would have said that the Republicans would have had a very good shot at the house.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I want Pro-life and anti gun control people in the Democratic party. I like Democrats to be a diverse party, and I am happy when I see a candidate distance himself from Pelosi or myself. Progressives only make up half of the Democratic party.

Now that HCR is passed, I have forgiven some of the Blue dogs who probably didn't support it in fears they would lose re-election.

What seems unfortunate, is the GOP has been moving further to the right. Nevertheless, Scott Brown won in Mass with a moderate agenda, and I think their candidates in DE, IL and CT will have to come across that way, if they are going to win those seats. Castle was moderate as a congressman, but even he could get entrenched with the culture of the far right and when you have a senate campaign or presidential campaign, moderate Republicans move to the right. That is just what John Mccain did in 2008.

____________________

Huda:

I'm thinking Hayworth might win this. Either way, I believe come November, this seat will be a Dem. Last night have shown the 'enthusiastic gap' within the Dem base might not be true. I believe they had more turn out than Republicans in all 3 States. Add that to a scared and pissed off Hispanic base who will come out to vote against any Republican in November.

____________________

Huda:

Another thing, I know its the beltway politics talking here, but anyone who understands local politics knows its not about the President. Critz like 1/3 of current Dems in the House is pro gun and pro-life, yet many of them caucus with the more liberal wing of the party and often vote with them. Critz was helped by the wave of people voting against Specter, who are more Obama base than anti his admin.

The real political analysis should be why are the Dems getting more of a turnout than Republican in these 'special election' which should show even more of the much talked about enthusiastic gap. Last night was a tip of the hat for Progressives and grassroots Liberal base who made sure dems and moderate came out to vote against Specter and force Lincoln on a run off that will enable Halter to take it come June. If I would pit the Tea Party against the Progressive in national election, I would bet against the former than the latter since they have a more viable national candidate who would not scare off the seniors, minorities, women and indies.

____________________

Stillow:

Burns got 45 percent of the vote in a district that is 2-1 Democrat. The Dem ran as a conservative who opposed Obamacare, is pro gun rights, pro life, etc....He's more conservative than some of the republicans we have i nthe House....To get 45 percent inthis type of district means there were substanical Democratic defections which will be a telling sign for November.

Dems almost always get higher turn out numbers because there are simply more Dems, in KY for example there is soemthing like 600,000+ more Dems than republicans. So there primary vote will be higher....and its usually party loyalists who vote in primarires.

Anti Obama ideaology won last night in PA 12. That is not a good sign of things to come....not all those districts out there have the luxury of having 2 to 1 Dem party UID advantage.

____________________

Xenobion:

Critz pro-life and pro-2nd amendment? lolz is that all what Democrats have to do to stay in office is support things that most likely won't have to be voted on? Oh and not vote on Health Care something that's already passed? haha wow, what suckers people must be...

____________________

notonegativity:

Against everything, for nothing! Anti-this, anti that, blah, blah, blah. You wanna know what people are sick of? Government not working together to help the people. I frankly cannot stand ANY republican now thanks to their lame azz do nothing, oppose everything bull crap. I cannot stand to read Stillow and Field Marshalls no it all dribbling about anti Obama crap. People want congress to get their heads out of their azzes and work for something, anything. Don't preach about spending because your lovely reps spent and spent and dug us into a canyon. Republicans are now opposing wall street reform. O goody, another freaking thing to oppose. It's so much fun to watch the government play games in an attempt to win the next election. There's many many voters out there just like me who aren't out there waving stupid signs and chanting socialist, communist bull crap who are chomping at the bit to vote in November and it sure as heck won't be for any Republican and there's quite a few democrats I wouldn't vote for either. Either do your job or get the heck out!

____________________

Huda:

So, from such point of view, anti-Obama would carry the Dems in November as well? If that is what keeps Dems in control of the House and Senate and make Obama agenda successful, then that's one damn memo liberal/Conservative Dems can live with.

You guys better come with a better argument and accept defeat like a Dem, cry about it for a while then regroup to get a major victory like 06 and 08.

____________________

Stillow:

Let me explain it to you this way....I know you libs have a hard time with reality.

In PA 12 we saw a huge fhift away from the Dem. In 2008 the Dems won that by 16 points. Last night, they won by 8. That is an 8 point swing...and it came in a district that is 2 to 1 Democrat. That means a whole lot of Dems are voting for the GOP right now. The same trend was evident in NJ, VA and MA.

No all those districts will have such a huge party id advantage for Dems. An 8 point shift is significant. Espeically since that shift is coming from all Dems moving to the right.

In early 2008 there were some speical electiosn in GOP leaning districts and the GOP won them by much narrower margins than normal....and the Dems were out claiming victory because it was evidence of a trend....they were right.

Also don't forget we saw a solid shift away from Dems in Wexelers old seat too....the trend is obvious....right now the Dems are squeaking by because the districts happen to carry a 2 to 1 advantage for them....but that is not the case in the dozens of seats the GOP will be targeting.

Try to use some actual analysis and not knee jerk gotcha stuff.

____________________

notonegativity:

Oh, Stillow, what would the "libs" do without your analysis to set them all straight being that we're all so slow and all and not living in reality? hahaha

____________________

Xenobion:

Uh the district was an R+1, also known as a swing district representative of the average of America, a district that McCain picked up against Obama. Now if Obama doesn't pick up the district, that's fine because there's the rest of the state but if we're talking about taking a national movement like the tea party and translating it into local politics, well... you just failed to make a local candidate relevant in this race.

Stillow your analysis is pretty farfetched to assume that Critz would attain the same popularity as Murtha in the 2008 election. This was an open seat up for grabs. A PA dem is a Regan Democrat that should be easily swayed to vote Republican. If you have no battle plan for Midwest & Appalachia then Republicans are going to lose so many congress races its not even funny.

____________________

Stillow:

X - You sound EXACTLY like Rush Linbaugh a few years ago in those early 2008 GOP narrow victories. His defense of the GOP winning by smaller than normal margins was even when we win, they claim we still lose.

The R+1 doesn't compute. You cannot use a presidential election to gauge local congressional races...why some of you do that is beyond me. The seat has been held by Dems forever, the last election had the Dem win by 16 points...this time it was 8....I think we also saw an 8 point shift in the FL race, did we not? In addition, the Dem was helped by a highly contested Dem senate primary which was on the ballot.

8 point swings are significant...you can try at dismiss these types of swings like the GOP did back in 2008 and you will see what happens.

Politics is about trends...and the trend remains clear....a clear shift away from Dem support. There is no other way to quantify it.

an 8 point shift like we saw in this race and the FL race would equate to huge gains in the House for the GOp this fall if that is going to be a baseline.

____________________

pion:

Stillow appears to be stuck on the false premise that since the margin of victory was smaller than in 2008, that implies many defections from dem->rep. In fact, participation in yesterday's PA-12 election shows that considerably fewer people voted than either in 2006 or 2008 (check out 538 which gives the data): 2010 there were 130k voters, 2008 there were 268k voters while in 2006 there were 203K voters. Its perfectly possible that there were no defections in either direction. The interesting question is: why did Burns voters not swamp Critz voters? The current leitmotiv is the notion of a large enthusiasm gap between dem and rep bases with rep being far more enthusiastic about going to the polls. Yet, in 2006, the rep candidate received 80K votes, in 2008 112k votes while in 2010 Burns received 59k votes. Obviously there was also a decline in dem voters but in principle, that was not as unexpected.

____________________

Stillow:

You miss my point. I "want" Dems to think everything is ok...that the shifts mean nothing. i want them to make the same exact mistakes the gop made in 2008. While I am posting my thoughts, my hope is you libs will dismiss them as meaningless. so ya, its my hope that Dems treat these trends the same way as the GOP did in 2008.

____________________

pion:

I'm pretty sure Dems don't think 'everything is ok'. Really.

____________________

LordMike:

"Ulimately, though, I don't think a Democrat can win statewide Arizona this year, given the political climate."

Disagree... Hispanics will be incredibly motivated to vote this year in AZ. Typically, republicans can get as many as 40% of the hispanic vote in AZ. This year, they will be lucky to get 4%.

____________________

Stillow:

LM - Didn't pew do a poll back in 2007 of only hispanics which showed that 42 percent of hispanic voters were opposed to illegal immigration and wanted tougher border security?

Can anyone remember that poll? It was a few years ago so I might ahve the year wrong.

____________________

LordMike:

If I may quote Charlie Cook:

Republicans have no excuse to lose this race. The fundamentals of this district, including voters' attitudes towards Obama and Pelosi, are awful for Democrats. And Democratic party registration advantages here are just as obsolete as GOP's advantages in Upstate New York were last year. Timing is no excuse for Republicans either. This special election, not the competitive statewide Democratic primaries held the same day, will be driving turnout on May 18th.

RNC Chairman Michael Steele and Sarah Palin GUARANTEED a win in PA-12 last night. You guys lost and lost big. Why? Burns said a vote would send a message against Pelosi and Obama's "agenda". Guess they like that "agenda" over there. Meanwhile, Critz highlighted Burn's affinity for free trade and the national sales tax that conservatives love, and voters were repulsed.

The takeaway? Voters still hate Republicans and republican "ideas" even in conservative districts.

____________________

LordMike:

More analysis:

Tom Davis, a former Republican House member and top party campaign strategist, saw the win by Democrat Mark Critz, a former aide to Mr. Murtha, over Republican Tim Burns as a serious blow to the Republican claim to be within reach of the 40 seats needed to recapture the House.

"If you can't win a seat that is trending Republican in a year like this, then where is the wave?" asked Mr. Davis, who said Republicans will need to examine what went wrong. "It would be a huge upset not to win this seat."

____________________

Field Marshal:

Critz pro-life and pro-2nd amendment? lolz is that all what Democrats have to do to stay in office is support things that most likely won't have to be voted on? Oh and not vote on Health Care something that's already passed? haha wow, what suckers people must be...

Ask Bart Stupak how that worked out for him.

The PA-12 seat will be red come November if Critz votes lockstep with Pelosi and the other radicals in charge of congress. Bet on it!

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

@Stillow

I go out for an afternoon walk, and you guys start saying stuff like "PA-12 was a victory for conservatives."

HA!

If the Republicans, can't win a district that elderly and 95% white, a district that voted for McCain in 2008, what can they win?

Turnout was poor across the board last night for Republicans. As usual, Democrats turned out 3-2 over the Republicans in the primary, even though Paul had national exposure for most of the race. Both Democrats in the Democratic primary had more votes than Paul in the Republican primary.

Chairman Steele and Senator McConnell are urinating on Republicans heads to give them a taste of what it's going to be like in November when it's going to rain on the Republicans parade. Steele is mismanaging the party and McConnell's legislative strategy leaves them with no clear accomplishments to run on.

We're now going to have to look at every likely voter poll and determine who's is actually likely to vote. Will hispanics turnout? Will seniors turn out? Who is going to vote and for whom?

PA-12 indicates that the Republicans can't even keep the voters they had in the losing 2008 effort.

____________________

Stillow:

What? If the GOp can't win a district that is 2 to 1 Democratic they are in deep trouble?

Hahahahahahaahahahaha!

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

@Field Marshal

"The PA-12 seat will be red come November if Critz votes lockstep with Pelosi and the other radicals in charge of congress. Bet on it!"

That's funny. I guess Murtha was a centrist?!?! How long did he hold that seat?

Burns got beat my Murtha's errand boy. How good is that? In a year that the Republicans should be trouncing the Democrats, a conservative Republican can't beat a congressional aide because all he has are posters depicting caricatures of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Burns didn't run a local race because all Republicans have to offer are tax cuts. They have no plans to govern or regulate anything. If you can't regulate, then you can't govern.

PA-12 won't be red in my lifetime.

____________________

Stillow:

Watch out, Shannon says GOP in trouble cus they didn't win a district 2 to 1 Democratic and a seat held by Dems for decades.........Its all over now....ignore the fact the Dems only got 53 percent i nthe district in which they dominate........

Keep ignoring the trends little libby's....

____________________

pion:

Stillow,

Here is a survey from Pew in September 2008:

'More than four-in-five Hispanics (81%) say that immigration enforcement should be left mainly to the federal authorities rather than the local police; 76% disapprove of workplace raids; 73% disapprove of the criminal prosecution of undocumented immigrants who are working without authorization; and 70% disapprove of the criminal prosecution of employers who hire undocumented immigrants. A narrow majority (53%) disapproves of a requirement that employers check a federal database to verify the legal immigration status of all prospective hires.'

This from:

http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=93

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

I guess in an elderly 95% white district, they only care about the (D) after the candidates name.

That's why they voted for McCain in 2008.

I guess conservative republicans are going to have a much easier time in Iowa, Michigan, California, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. *sarcasm*

I see your logic.

____________________

LordMike:

Stillow,

I do not remember that poll, but PPP's most recent AZ poll taken the week after the AZ law was signed showed Brewer with only 6% of hispanic support.

I don't have the previous numbers for her, but according to exit polls, even John Kyl managed about 40% of hispanic support in his last election.

That's a big drop in support.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I don't think the Johnstown PA area is 2-1 Democratic.

____________________

Stillow:

I could be wrong that is was pew, it was a few years ago during the Bush attempt to reform.

You oculd be right that a recent poll would show a drop, but IMO soe of that is just due to the misinformation about the bill which will be corrected over time.

pion - i agree with them, that it shoudl be the feds job, but the Feds have failed. AZ had to do something....they have innocent people dying....kidnappings are way up, drug smuggling is way up. They have to do something to sto pthe insanity....the feds have been unwilling or unable to do anything for years about it.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

That is about the ratio of Dems to Republicans in Vermont or Western Mass.

I do have to say Rand Paul is a likeable guy and he portrays his causes well like his father. As for other tea party candidates, like Hayworth, their message is much darker. I mean there is a fine line between those who promote less government and more personal freedom to those like Hayworth who don't respect our freedom and want law enforcement to be able to randomly arrest darker skinned people. Hayworth is also a self proclaimed social conservative, who did attack ads on Mccain saying he is too secular. I am sure Hayworth wouldn't stop at targeting Mccain's wife and daughter for privately supporting gay marriages in CA. These type of tactics are what has ruined American politics.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

My problem with Arizona's law was the timing of it and the fact Brewer started considering the law at the time, the right wing was demanding to see Obama's birth certificate. That was the key aspect of the bill.

Why didn't more states with high illegal populations decide to pass a "paper's Please Law" while Bush was still president? Bush and Obama are just as guilty of not passing immigration reform.

I think, there are some birthers in the Arizona legislature who wanted to give Obama a hard time. Something about the state had it in for Obama right from the beginning. The University wouldn't give him an honorary degree. Honorary degrees have been given to people like George W Bush, Ronald Reagan, Clarence Thomas and Newt Gingrich from universities. The president of the University nearly wouldn't give it to Obama because he had not accomplished enough, after Obama had already been invited. Obama went and got his degree.

There is just something that wasn't right about the whole thing.

____________________

pion:

Stillow:

"i agree with them, that it shoudl be the feds job, but the Feds have failed. AZ had to do something....they have innocent people dying....kidnappings are way up, drug smuggling is way up. They have to do something to sto pthe insanity....the feds have been unwilling or unable to do anything for years about it"

I agree with the sentiment of your post. However, what AZ did doesn't even make sense in practical terms. Sheriff departments don't have the resources for this kind of law enforcement, especially when the vast majority of illegal workers are not in the least dangerous. They are basically poor people looking for work. I'm not a fan of Bush, but I give him credit for trying. If you recall, the effort failed because many in the Republican base decried the notion of paying a fine and getting to the back of the line as 'amnesty'. Personally, I don't see prison and/or deportation as either doable or desirable.

____________________

Stillow:

I can respect that some disagree with the AZ approach, but again they had to do something....the feds have totally dropped the ball on this one, both parties. I read a story not a month ago of a father of 5 in AZ killed by an illegal alien in AZ. Its a hard job telling those 5 kids they no longer have a dad because our g'ment failed to do its constitutionalally mandated obligation of securing the borders.

If someone, inlcuding myself is pulled over, I don't have a beef at all of having to provide proper ID....no one should.

I oppose amnesty, but we hav eto secure the border first. We can't keep letting people pour into this country....maybe most do want jobs and that's it, but there are millions of americans out of worktoo looking for work.

There is no easy answer, but what is clear is the feds have failed....and it left AZ with little choice, they had to try soemthing IMO.

____________________

Sean Murphy:

Farleft and the other frequent liberal commentors on this site probably have not even read the AZ law. Just in case you didn't know the police can only ask for someone papers if they are all ready engaged with an individual on another violation(drunk driving and so on) they can not just randomly stop people who go out to get an ice cream. Most rational people understand this and support AZ's efforts.

____________________

pion:

Stillow: "There is no easy answer, but what is clear is the feds have failed".

That's true. So the question is what can the states do while waiting for action from the federal government? Part of the problem for AZ is that CA (where I live) has had success in stemming the flow of illegal border crossings. I think the only real course of action for border states is to make it much more difficult to enter the US illegally. There isn't much local law enforcement can do once the border was successfully crossed.

____________________

Stillow:

But again, I don't have an issue with the AZ law requring a police officer to ask someone he pulled over for drunk driving for example to show proper ID and citizenship....for people of all colors. I have to show proper ID if I am pulled over....

It would also be intresting to note that of the 3 main countires in N. America, it is Mexico who has the strongest illegal immigration laws and uses the military for example to help protect its southern border from illegal crossings.

____________________

Xenobion:

If you can't win PA-12, you're not going to have a landslide in Nov. Nuff' said.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR