Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

KY: 2010 Sen (Rasmussen 2/2)

Topics: poll

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

Kentucky

2010 Senate
49% Grayson (R), 35% Mongiardo (D)
48% Paul (R), 37% Mongiardo (D)
44% Grayson (R), 40% Conway (D)
47% Paul (R), 39% Conway (D)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Trey Grayson: 61 / 18
Dan Mongiardo: 45 / 43
Rand Paul: 54 / 26
Jack Conway: 47 / 32

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 42 / 57
Gov. Beshear: 49 / 48

 

Comments
ndirish11:

Go Rand! I would love to see a primary poll done...

____________________

ndirish11:

Go Rand! I would love to see a primary poll done...

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Why even have a Democratic candidate in Kentucky? Democrats should save their money and run agressive campaigns in seats they have to protect as well as NH, OHIO and Missouri. No Democrat in KY, SC, TN or GA will get appreciated this year, since all Democrats will reflect the great Bolshevic president Obama. DNC, don't waste your money. Kentucky went behind the conservative iron curtain a long time ago. If Jim Bunning and Mitch Mcconnell are the kind of leaders they elect, why bother to run against them?

____________________

ndirish11:

Farleftandproud- Rand Paul is not your typical candidate for KY as well. He maybe not be a democrat, but he isn't your typical Republican either. He has almost identical libertarian views to his father, except he is a bit more moderate. The Pauls have a libertarian stance on social issues as well (which is a lot closer to a typical Democrats stance then one of a Republican)

Rand Paul is real change and he was leading in the last poll over Grayson. KY should be looked at as smart if he is elected. Not the dumb hick state as Democrats regard it as now.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Is Rand Paul the kind of politician who will have radical anti choice ideas like Senators Brownback or Jim Demint? How does he feel about gays in the military or other heated issues?

____________________

Farleftandproud:

The Dems would be stupid not to nominate Conway. Than again they shot themselves for nominating the weak candidate in IL, and will make a huge mistake by nominating Arlen Specter in the primary. It especially irritates me why they would nominate a guy who killed health reform 15 years ago as a Republican. Especially if health care fails, Specter will likely get killed by 20 points. In fact, I think the voters are so stupid, they will vote for Toomey, just because he is opposing Specter, and they won't bother looking at which party is which.

____________________

ndirish11:

Rand Paul believes in no government intervention in marriage. Like Ron Paul, he believes marriage should be something "religious" and opposes any federal ban of gay marriage.

Ron and Rand Paul maybe pro-life, but neither see it as a federal government issue and would see it as something each state has control of. And frankly, if the majority of people in Kentucky want abortion to be illegal, well it should be.

One thing I love about the Pauls is that they don't mandate their personal/religious beliefs. They are both Christians so you would think they would try to impose laws against gay marriage, but they don't. They don't let their personal beliefs get in the way of politics, sure they might not personally believe gay marriage is right, but they recognize this is a free country and peoples relationships should be free.

I actually believe a Libertarian view of marriage is better for homosexuals who want marriage then say what a Democrat promises. I mean get the government out of marriage completely and let you decide who you want to marry.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

That is interesting about Rand Paul. Ron has never run for statewide office, so I think for Rand Paul, winning the nomination in KY would be quite an accomplishment.

I do believe that in many of the bluer states like PA, IL, DE and NH, the GOP candidates will have a dilemma if they are in favor of ending don't ask don't tell in the primary, or against torture, and change their positions when the general election comes around. As a Progressive, that would be our best chances of success for the Democrats.

____________________

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

I don't understand the republican (small r) argument here. Aren't there SOME rights that are inalienable? Why should an individual state be allowed to infringe about the inalienable right to marry whom you want? The right to terminate a pregnancy if you want? A constraint is a constraint, whether it comes from the federal government or from a state. Why is he such a savior for favoring the latter?

____________________

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

I don't understand the republican (small r) argument here. Aren't there SOME rights that are inalienable? Why should an individual state be allowed to infringe about the inalienable right to marry whom you want? The right to terminate a pregnancy if you want? A constraint is a constraint, whether it comes from the federal government or from a state. Why is Paul such a savior for favoring the latter?

____________________

ndirish11:

I really don't think Ron Paul/Rand (whoever your talking about) is a "savior" for their view on social issues. I think people are just refreshed when you would hear that not everyone of the Republican candidates is against gay-marriage. Paul believes in state rights simply because they are constitutional.

People get really drawn to him because of his ant-war libertarianism and his smaller government proposals. The ideas of more economic freedom, more personal freedom, and peace really appeal to people.

____________________

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

He IS against gay marriage- he just thinks it should be denied by the state, not the federal government. My point is... why is it so revolutionary that he's against gay marriage on a state level? Why is that refreshing? As I said before, a constraint or denial of rights is the same whether it comes from the federal government or a state government.

By saying you think that states should decide, you're saying a civil right is up to a public vote. When do I get to vote on whether you can own property?

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

The same states' rights argument was made against civil rights legislation. Look up Barry Goldwater's position on the subject.

____________________

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

Maybe Dr. Paul ain't so revolutionary after all, eh...?

____________________

ndirish11:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84
You should watch that.

Ron Paul is not against gay marriage. He is against any federal involvement in marriage. He wants marriage not involved in the government at all. State or Federal. It's your personal beliefs who you marry, and thats a truly revolutionary idea.

Maybe you ignored my last arguement. Social issues are not why people consider Ron Paul revolutionary. It's because he wants to end both wars, bring our troops home from all 130 countries there in, focus on our defense, realistically address the debt we are in, and create a government that actually abides by our Constitution. For you to say Ron Paul doesn't support gay marriage (which isn't true) and then to conclude that means he isn't "revolutionary" is crazy.

Wether you agree with him or not is one thing. But the fact that he was able to spread these ideas to the masses is revolutionary and to say he is a typical politician is outrageous.

____________________

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

I didn't ignore your argument... I said it's not a valid one. It's clear you have drunk the Kool-Aid so my goal isn't to persuade you. It's to point out that it's pretty easy to have popular issue positions when you're running for something. Which of these stances significantly and fundamentally challenge Republican orthodoxy: smarter wars, defense spending, paying down the national debt, and smaller government? Oh wait... none of them! Where's the difference again?

You're right, I stand corrected about his position on marriage. I've read other quotes from him on the issue saying it's between one man and one woman but I can admit when I'm wrong.

P.S. Your spelling is atrocious... and undermines your arguments...

____________________

Badbaddog17:

What makes Ron Paul revolutionary is his stance for sound money: abolish the Federal Reserve and legal tender laws that force citizens to use the government's official money. Without the ability to control money, the government would have to shrink because it couldn't steal its citizens' wealth on the sly. It couldn't afford to wage nation building and post garrisons in 130 nations. It couldn't afford all those wasteful bureacracies like the departments of labor, education, energy, and housing and urban development that crank out regulations that crush liberty and discourage enterprise. Republicans and Democrats are both Interventionists. Its just a matter of which causes on whose behalf they intervene. Ron Paul is a Libertarian. He believes people are capable of managing their own affairs without government intervention.

____________________

Badbaddog17:

It's important to distinguish between inalienable and civil rights. The Bill of Rights identifies the inalienble rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (some Enlightenment philosophers name the last one the right to property: to enjoy the fruits of ones labor and do with it as one wishes), in that order. As for abortion, it hinges on whether a fetus is a "life". If so, its right to life trumps the mother's right to liberty. If not, it has no rights to speak of. Your view on abortion should hinge on the status of the fetus, not the rights of the mother. As for gay marriage, it is within the rights of the individual to pursue their own happiness. I say this as an evangelical Christian who gave his wedding vows in front of God and these witnesses but resents having to go to the courthouse and register for legal status. The government's control over the definition of marriage allows it to encourage it (heterosexuals) or discourage it (gays), primarily through the tax code but civil code as well. This is blatantly interventionist, not Libertarian. That's what Ron Paul believes.

____________________



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