Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

KS: 2010 Gov (Rasmussen 2/24)

Topics: poll

Rasmussen
2/24/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

Kansas

2010 Governor
55% Brownback (R), 33% Holland (D)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Sam Brownback: 58 / 34
Tom Holland: 34 / 23

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 42 / 58
Gov. Parkinson: 58 / 34

 

Comments
Field Marshal:

Seriously, a senate race in Kansas? The dems cannot hold very liberal states. What makes people think they have a shot in Kansas?

____________________

www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=22013717:

Well, seeing as how the poll is for a governor's race, I don't know why you'd think this poll would tell you anything about a Senate race, regardless of your asinine assertion that "Dems cannot hold very liberal states."

____________________

Field Marshal:

"asinine assertion that "Dems cannot hold very liberal states."

Yeah, i don't know where i would have gotten that idea. (see Scott Brown) (See Mark Kirk) (See George Pataki) (See Pat Toomey).

LOL.

____________________

www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=22013717:

First of all, Massachusetts isn't a very liberal state in every way. Maybe you should brush up on a nuanced definition of commonly misused words...

...and what about Mark Kirk? He won in a very moderate, Republican-leaning Congressional district. Not a Senator from what I can tell... nor is Illinois a "very liberal state." See my first paragraph.

George Pataki? A moderate Republican in a largely moderate (sometimes even Republican) state like New York (outside of NYC). Last I checked, not a Senator from what I can tell...

Pat Toomey? A very, very conservative Republican in a perennial swing state who won in a very Republican Congressional district. Last I checked, he's not a Senator and Pennsylvania is quite far from a "very liberal state."

So again... what's your point?

____________________

Field Marshal:

So Massachusetts, Illinois, Pennsylvania and New York are not liberal states. I see i'm not dealing with someone with a few suits short of deck. I think i'll leave this one alone.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Ugh, messed that one up. I see i'm dealing someone that is a few suits short of a deck.

I was still laughing that Mass wasn't a liberal state. WOW... just wow....

____________________

www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=22013717:

No, Massachusetts, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and New York aren't liberal states.... they have liberal CITIES but they aren't liberal states. If everyone who lived in all of these states were liberal, their entire Congressional delegation would be all Democratic. For NY, it's 26-3. Yup, small... but look at the State House. It was controlled by Republicans up until a few years ago. PA is 11D-7R. Illinois is 12D-7R. Oops. Didn't think of that, did ya?

If you want to talk about a few suits short of a deck, how about someone who takes 2 times to post the correct yet stupid and not-at-all empirical post? Yeah.. that'd be you, darlin.

____________________

Field Marshal:

So there are no liberal states then? That's news to me and most clear thinking individuals. Puh lease....

____________________

independent345:

I'm sorry but Massachusetts is completely liberal as a state. All 10 congressional delegates are Democrats. The Democrats control the State Senate 35-5, and the State House of Representatives by something like 131-19. Let me say that again. 131-19. That's probably the single most lopsided state legislative chamber of any state in either direction.

The Democrats also hold every major state-wide office including Governor, Lt. Governor, Treasurer, Attorney General, Secretary of State, etc.

Furthermore, the westernmost part of the state regularly votes 7-=30 for Democrats. Even Martha Coakley carried the Berkshires. So you cannot say Massachusetts is liberal just for its cities. Nor can you say Massachusetts is not liberal, because it is in fact overwhelmingly liberal.

Also, everyone in a state need not be liberal for the state itself to be liberal. I mean seriously, is 26-3 not a large enough margin for you? And even if the State House was controlled by Republicans, they were for the most part very moderate Republicans vs. the extraordinarily liberal Democrats. So again, clearly these are liberal states.

____________________

independent345:

I meant to say western Mass regularly votes 70 to 30 for Democrats.

____________________

www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=22013717:

You've made my point, independent345. When you say a state is "liberal," to whom are you referring? Elected officials? The electorate? MA is full of socially conservative Catholics who may or may not vote Democratic. Their policy positions may be conservative while their voting behavior (sometimes) may be liberal. Of course MA's elected officials are liberal; that obviously doesn't mean the issues on which voters make their decisions have to be liberal for someone to win! Scott Brown isn't liberal nor is he conservative- he won because he put together the right set of issues to win a plurality during a special election. (That and Martha ran an epically poor campaign- or a non-existent one at that).

My point is to call a state "liberal" just because it's what you heard Rush or Glenn say shows you're not a deep thinker... ala Field Marshal...

____________________

independent345:

I wouldn't even call many of Massachusetts' Catholics socially conservative. Even among them support for same-sex marriage, abortion rights, fighting poverty, and social justice is quite strong. So, barring small minorities of South Shore towns and Worcester suburbs, where there are some, albeit very few, social conservatives, social liberals and economic leftists outnumber others overwhelmingly. The electorate and elected officials are both 90% liberal. Even the 12% Republicans have plenty of socially liberal, fiscally conservative voters. So, is that not enough to make generalizations? Is that not a trend? While the ENTIRE STATE is not liberal, the ABSOLUTE MAJORITY is.

Please don't pretend otherwise. Unless you set your standard to 100% of the state, Massachusetts is clearly and indisputably liberal. I would know, I live here.

____________________

www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=22013717:

I never said 100% of a state has to be liberal for it to be called "liberal." Where did I say that?

Fine, I'll concede Massachusetts. It never was my main point anyway. Look at the other states that the lunatic suggests. Illinois? PA? These aren't "liberal" states and no one has lost a Senate race in these places yet. Again, was my main point. Are you just Field Marshal signed in as a new name? No, that can't be... your spelling and grammar are better...

____________________

Stillow:

FM - Ya you lunatic....MA is not liberal. What kind of stunt are you trying to pull claiming that Mass is a liberal state.

I can't beleive anyone coudl rationally claim that MA is a liberal state. FM must be another racist right wing nut job if you ask me.

Next thing FM is going to outragously claim is that Obama is not a liberal either. Sheeesh. Crazy right wingers!

MA is probably the reddest state in the nation.

____________________

Xenobion:

Facebook welcome to the club. You'll find most of the Conservatives here play 1up-manship and lump all liberals into one group. You've already been brandished a liberal FYI because you disagree with them.

____________________

lat:

Quote from Field Marshall from a previous post "The GOP has not received much of the minority vote over the years not becuase they are racists or biggots, but because they stick to their principles..."

FM,

You truly must live on another planet. I don't know how you could have the balls to make that statement (and keep a straight face), but then again nothing surprises me anymore. The whole reason the dems lost the south was because LBJ signed civil rights into law and for years the GOP made hay using that as a wedge issue. Richard Nixon and his "southern" strategy, in addition here is a direct quote from Nixon himself "Abortion is ok if you are a jew or a black". Ronald Reagan and his "states rights" campaign, although to be fair I don't think Reagan was an out and out racist the way Nixon was he just used wedge issues to his advantage. And how about Willie Horton- Look all you suburban white people Michael Dukakis let out this big bad black man from jail who will come and eat your young for dinner if you elect him president, Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, but your right there was no racial overtones to any of this. Nah!

____________________

Field Marshal:

"My point is to call a state "liberal" just because it's what you heard Rush or Glenn say shows you're not a deep thinker... ala Field Marshal..."

If you have to cite racism or Fox News/Rush, it means you already lost the argument because you didn't have any rational thoughts or logic to use against me. That shows the depth of your intelligence right there.

"Look at the other states that the lunatic suggests. Illinois? PA? These aren't "liberal" states and no one has lost a Senate race in these places yet. "

Now I'm a lunatic for suggesting Illinois and New York are liberal states? That's funny. And Utah isn't a conservative state either. Buddy, you're a digging yourself a deep whole in your fantasyland that may not be recoverable. Their are meds out there for you. I highly recommend some of them before you go past the point of no return in your delusions.

Stillow: yup, just another right wing nut job around here.
Along with a majority of the rest of the country. And this person is allowed to vote for some reason. Yikes. Hence the issues our country faces today.

lat: Its easy to make that statement when its true. Is it not? Do the GOP pander to the minority vote like the Dems do? No! Why? Because their principles are of small government (i.e. less government spending) and no handouts. Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Very simple. As for the rest of your crazy rant, it goes both ways to Robert Byrd to Harry Reid. Give it a rest....

____________________

Stillow:

lat just thinks if your not a liberal handing out a check at the beginning of every month then your a racist. His liberal brand of racism has destoyred and done severe damage to the afircan american community in the country. He clearly has a chip on his shoulder about white conservatives.

I dunno, after a while it just seems to run together listeing to libs yell out racism this and racism that.

Of course we're told by other liberals that popular miniorities i nthe south like Jindal and Rubio are exceptions of course.

Oh and can someone please tell lat it took a republican president to end slavery and took republicans to pass civil rights in the 60's when Dems like Byrd were filibustering. Oh and can someone also tell lat that the most infamous racists like Bull Connor or govenor Wallace were Democrats!! Oh and can you let him know that mot of the more severe instances of racism come fro mthe left.....like FDR rounding up americans based entirely on race to put them into camps during WW2 (japanese).

____________________

Field Marshal:

SHHHHH!! Stillow, you can't use thought and reasoni. That's against the rules when dealing with delusional libs like lat and the unnamed facebook poster.

The sad thing is we allow these people to vote.

____________________



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