Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

KY: 2010 Sen (Rasmussen 5/19)

Topics: Kentucky , Senate

Rasmussen
5/19/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

Kentucky

2010 Senate
59% Paul (R), 34% Conway (D) (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Rand Paul: 69 / 28
Jack Conway: 44 / 45

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 36 / 63
Gov. Beshear: 46 / 52

 

Comments
kevin626:

Well this seems to be quite a bump for Paul. Last poll I saw before the primary had it at only a 1 point difference between Paul and Conway.

____________________

Paleo:

LOL. What a joke Republicmussen is.

____________________

Field Marshal:

It's a smooth-sail to victory for Rand and the Tea party movement. I know that the bitter pill will be tough for libs to swallow and expect 20+ posts on how Ras is biased and promoting an agenda.

START NOW!

____________________

Paleo:

Too late, FM. Beat you to it.

Scott's playing his role in the right-wing media echo chamber to the hilt. Anyone who thinks this is going to end up a 25-point race, even in Kentucky, is wackier than Ayn Rand Paul is.

____________________

Paleo:

Razz just released another poll on the PA race:

Toomey 92%
Sestak 8%

____________________

Field Marshal:

I see that. Damn, and i was too busy working.

Anyway, i think Paul is benefiting from all the media attention he received in his upset primary win, hence the large spread. I suspect that will fall back down to earth but I still think Conway doesn't have much of a shot. Conway is a career politician and exactly the opposite of what the populace, especially in Kentucky, is clamoring for.

____________________

jmartin4s:

This poll is joke, even long time incumbent senators don't win relection in Kentucky with as much as 59%. Rand Paul is seen as extremely looney and if he wins he'll win with 53% at the most and that would be in a 1994 type of climate. PPP had Paul leading Conway by only 1 point. Does Ras really expect us to believe this. According to PPP's poll 44% of Grayson supporters said they refuse to vote for Paul in November. Thus it would be impossible for him to poll at 59%. I'm so sick this polling company changing around their results to shape a political agenda like they did with Mass last January. SurveyUS needs to poll this state NOW

____________________

melvin:

Rasmussen is working with the gop,this poll is a flatoutliar,this guy came out with a poll on arz showing the gop winning big,thats not going to happen because of the hispanic vote,the federal govt needs to investigate rasmussen,this guy polls very fast right after a big event happens like the elections on tuesday,and the conn controversy,rasmussen hopes the other polls will follow his lead,but this is ridicoulous,

____________________

Bob in SJ:

I think after his more unsavory comments about the civil right act and the ADA get more press attention, even Rassmussen won't be able to prop him up.

____________________

Field Marshal:

And here they all come....

____________________

Field Marshal:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0510/Paul_blames_loony_left_for_civil_rights_focus.html?showall

The whole CRA is another AZ immigration law made-up controversy. He stated that he didn't like federal involvement in businesses and that "segregation" businesses would fold because most people aren't racists and wouldn't shop there. But with the CRA, the federal government butts their heads in telling people what they can and cannot do and thus those same racist business owners are still in business. Which would have been better?

OH, and i'll beat Obamalover to it. Clearly Rand (and Stillow, Statypolly, Djneedle, Gary Wagner and I for that matter) are racists.

____________________

jmartin4s:

Rasmussen is probably trying to get Conway's good fundraising to stop, their motives are so transparent it astounds me. Not mention they make you pay to see their crosstabs and only poll over a period one day. If PPP and Susa confirm this result I will accept it but PPP's last poll had Paul at 41% and I don't believe Paul could have surged that much. Rand Paul is like the biggest wingnut running for the senate this year.

____________________

rdw4potus:

"Anyway, i think Paul is benefiting from all the media attention he received in his upset primary win, hence the large spread"

Paul was ahead in the polls. How was his win an "upset?" Is that another word that Republicans have an alternative definition of?

____________________

Coldfusion:

HA HA HA HA HA!

Yeah. How about these?
Stillow and Field Marshall were talking about these leaked Ras polls about to come out!

Boxer 25%
Fiorina 75%

Toomey 88%
Sestak 12%

Bennet 16%
Norton 84%


Reid 4%
Chicken Lady 110%


____________________

Bob in SJ:

@FM

It dosen't matter if Rand is a racist or not. He's just not ready for prime time, and the press will kill him for it. It's a great story, better than the AZ immigration bill. He's essentially on record saying that it's okay for businesses to discriminate.

Anyway, he's already backpedaling, saying that he wouldn't support repeal of the CRA. This story's got legs!

____________________

TeaPartyRules:

LOL, another huge victory for THE MOVEMENT!

____________________

jmartin4s:

A lot of the Grayson supporters are pretty annoyed that Rand Paul got to be the nominee. Many of them have said they intend to hold their nose and vote for Conway in November. But the most astounding part is that it is very rare someone wins an election with 59% in Kentucky. Mitch McConnell managed to get in 2002, 64.7% against someone who didn't have a dime in their campaign account but thats pretty much it. Even Steve Beshear beat corrupt incumbent Fletcher by a little under 59%. However even if in some strange world Paul was headed for a 2 to 1 win he wouldn't be polling at 59% this early he'd be polling at 55% or 56% max. Something is just off here, many people in Kentucky don't like Rand Paul.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

FM, this is from your link:

"Paul called the Civil Rights Act "settled" but suggested he does view federal regulation of private business on matters of racial discrimination as fundamentally unconstitutional."

This is basically the position that Barry Goldwater took on civil rights in the early-mid 60s, not surprising given Paul's libertarianism. The argument went, the federal government cannot FORCE businesses to serve people they don't want. It was a property rights issue. Businesses have the right to choose who they wished to serve, kind of like they can refuse service to people not wearing shirts or shoes. Thus, the civil rights act violated the constitution because there's nothing in it that gives the Fed power to regulate business/customer relations and that power should be reserved to the states according to the 10th amendment. They argued the 14th amendment applied to public entities only, not private businesses. The other side argued that private businesses fell under the fed's powers in the commerce clause.

I can see the argument here, but in reality it encourages segregation, and I find that a disgusting position. Goldwater claimed no racism, and I don't think he was, but his policies would have tolerated it.

____________________

Vincent106:

November is going to be a bloodbath for the Dems. Unemployment is still rising and Obama's anti-business policies are scarying the crap out of the private sector. Jobless claims spiked this morning. Good night and good bless Obama. You're a failure beyond comprehension!

____________________

Bob in SJ:

@ Vincent

Just like the Republicnas were sure to win PA-12, huh? The Dems will hold the house and the Senate, but with reduced majorities.

____________________

Fred:

what don't you people understand? It's called a BUMP! Crist got one. The next poll out will probably show Paul with 53% and conway with 42% or something like that. Still, with these numbers, Paul looks to be in good shape.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Aaron,

Yes, i believe that Rand's argument was that there were better ways- more constitutional ways- to achieve the same end.

Rands ideology and person opinions is that the federal government is overstepping its bounds so Maddow and the extremists on MSNBC attempted to try and imply that he was against the CRA.

He issued a statement this morning that basically stated he favors it and would have voted for it.

Conway has no shot in my opinion. He supports HCR and the state of Kentucky is squarely against it.

Fred, you can't imply that. ALl most on the left here see is Ras and a lead for the Republican. That's all they need to see to jump to the irrational conclusion that the poll is biased.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"there were better ways- more constitutional ways- to achieve the same end."

What better ways? If you allowed businesses to discriminate on the basis of race some would have continued to do it.

____________________

Paleo:

"Vincent106:
November is going to be a bloodbath for the Dems. Unemployment is still rising and Obama's anti-business policies are scarying the crap out of the private sector. Jobless claims spiked this morning. Good night and good bless Obama. You're a failure beyond comprehension!"

Actually, there has been job growth the last several months. If it keep up for few more months, Obama will surpass the number of net jobs created during Bush's 8 years.

I get a kick out of people who support the same policies that caused the economy to fall off a cliff when Obama took over, criticizing Obama on the economy. I think the word for it is chutzpah.

____________________

pion:

Bob in SJ:

"He's essentially on record saying that it's okay for businesses to discriminate."

To be fair, he's not saying that it's okay for private businesses to discriminate, he's saying their right to do so is constitutionally protected although he himself finds the practice abhorrent. As Aaron already nicely phrased, it's basically Goldwater's position.

Rand Paul is also against Gay Marriage, but with a Libertarian twist: government shouldn't be involved in issuing marriage permits to anyone. Even if Rand Paul is not homophobic, his position encourages unequal treatment of Gay Americans because the government will always be involved in issuing marriage permits.

Finally, Rand Paul supports a constitutional ban on abortion. So, from his perspective, government can tell a woman what to do with her body.

Between his views that segregated lunch counters should be legal, his anti-gay marriage stance and his inflexible pro-life views, he appears more right wing than any senator I know of.

____________________

bigfoot9p6:

This race at the end of the day is really not that interesting. You have a candidate who will be a rubber stamp for the hard right trying to replace a rubber stamp for the hard right. Its not even really that important.

____________________

jamesia:

Too bad there aren't many actual libertarians out there - classical liberals. Most of them are rebranded Republicans. PA-12 showed us that even though Obama might be viewed poorly, GOP are viewed far worse... so here we have Tea Party and Libertarian rebrands.

I do agree with pion's statement that being against government sanctioned marriage is a politically safe way of being against gay marriage. Marriage ain't going away!

One poll certainly doesn't make data, but if other polls mirror this one, then that's a huge bounce for Rand! It's possible that the district is simply more GOP percent-wise.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Finally, Rand Paul supports a constitutional ban on abortion. So, from his perspective, government can tell a woman what to do with her body.

Actually, he's for human life, i.e. everyone has a right to life, including the unborn. Saying that he's for the government telling what a woman would do with her body is equivalent to saying he's for the government telling a serial killer he can't go around murdering people. Makes no sense. Murder is murder whether its in-utero or out. When their is a life in a woman's body, it is no longer simply HER body.

____________________

pion:

FM: putting the fundamental issues of abortion aside for a moment, what happened to state rights? For him, a repeal of Roe vs Wade doesn't go far enough, he's for a constitutional ban. He's a far right politician, not a Libertarian.

____________________

Fred:

A baby lives in a body. It isn't part of a body. There are 2 bodies when referring to a woman and an unborn child. Isn't attempted suicide illegal (i could be wrong but I think it is). If so, the government already tells people what they can and can't do to their bodies. However, an unborn child is a separate body inside the mother's body. Abortion kills the baby. It doesn't kill part of the mother.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Well in Kentucky when you talk about repealing the civil rights act of course it is going to help his poll numbers. Dems got all excited about this one, but I kept telling them, don't expect too much from KY.

KY a big mining state has gotten brainwashed from the far right. When you look at state like KY and see how they rank at the bottom in education, life expectancy, infant mortality and so on, it makes me sad that they reward politicians out for the special interests.

Iran will be a democracy before some of these white southerners come to their senses.

____________________

CHRIS MERKEY:

I thought Maddow exposed him for his true beliefs. He went on Ingraham's show to try to explain it . Of course, she had to attack Maddow because we are all supposed to think the way Ingraham thinks. Her and Coulter have two of the most annoying voices I have ever heard in my life. OH besides Palin. I digress ..... Now back to Paul He kept on avoiding the question. However, if he knew it wasn't such a bad interview, why did he do damage control on Ingraham's show? I think Conway has a chance at this state if Paul contiues to make slip-ups like this. He might
get the Rep vote but not all ( heard Grayson's supporters won't vote for him too) and comments like this will definitely hurt his chances with independents and dems. Just wait until his comments about social security start to surface.

____________________

CHRIS MERKEY:

@bigfoot

As much as we heard about Scott Brown winning in MA, it would be nice to brag about winning one from a state that doesn't typically vote for Dems in statewide elections for President or senator. It does matter. It also might also offest some losses in AR, NV, DE, ND.

____________________

nick283:

Rand Paul probably won't win by this much, but he might. McCain won Kentucky by 17 points and Obama was a lot more popular when he won the election. Paul doesnt need any kind of Republican wave to win. Anyone running with an R by their name in this state especially in this environment has a huge advantage.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I saw Maddow's interview last night, and I think she tried to be very fair to Paul. He did not give a good explanation about repealing the civil rights law. It is a little troubling. I was really troubled by his explanation in trying to pass resteraunts as public places. He kept saying it is unconstutional to have laws that gays blacks, hispanics or any other group to be allowed to be served in a resteraunt. This psychotalk really is beyond something that Trent Lott would say. For a young man like Paul it was really troubling.

I find that most of the mainstream conservatives don't want to ad new anti-discriminatory laws like a hate crimes bill, but few want to repeal existing laws.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I think this poll is really blown out of preportion. The Democratic turnout was about 1/3 higher than the GOP. Dems may not win this one, but symbolically they have to run as many attack ads as possible since Paul has clearly demonstrated what he believes. He said the very things last night, that most conservatives really believe but try to cover up. At least I have to say Paul is honest. At least he doesn't pull the bait and switch tactics of Governor Mcdonnell in Virginia.

____________________

bigfoot9p6:

CHRIS MERKEY: Agreed. Absolutely. My point is that the only thing of any consequence that could happen is the Dem winning. A far right tea baggers winning the primary does not matter at all, because he would simply replace a far right bitter old man should he win. As a corollary, I would add that if he does win, it is no reason for the right to celebrate, since the right and left extremes can't really write legislation that adheres to their ideology (if they did they would get ~25% of the vote in each house). If anything, he would be a headache for the Republicans because he would vote no on much of their agenda, because god knows the republican party isn't fiscally conservative (see Bush, GW; Reagan, R.)

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Life beginning at conception and legislating that is actually from the bible. A contitutional ban on abortion violates our seperation from Church vs state. Life begginning at conception is something many Christian believe, but many don't. In fact 2/3 of this country thinks Roe Vs Wade should be upheld. That doesn't mean they are all pro-choice. Those who want to criminalize abortion are not in the majority.

____________________

pion:

Well, it appears that Rand Paul has pirouetted on his view that private businesses have a constitutional right to discriminate based on race:

"Civil Rights legislation that has been affirmed by our courts gives the Federal government the right to ensure that private businesses don't discriminate based on race. Dr. Paul supports those powers."

says Jesse Benton, a Rand Paul aide.

I would like to believe that he imagined a downtown Lexington dotted with restaurants sporting "Whites Only" signs and felt repulsed by the vision. It would be nice to believe that his desire to be a US senator had nothing to do with his flip flop.

____________________

pion:

I forgot to mention that the story was from Ben Smith at Politico:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0510/Paul_accepts_business_regulation.html

____________________

obamalover:

Tea Party candidate and libertarian icon Rand Paul won't say whether he would support the Civil Rights Act.

Conservatives complain and whine when liberals call them racists. Well if you don't want to be called one don't act like one. Otherwise I'll continue to point out the obvious.

____________________

jmartin4s:

Here's a random though. What has Rand Paul done to make him qualified to be in the senate. He is an ophalmologist. He has no legislative experience. I mean I just read through his wikipedia page and the only political activity I have seen him involved in is being the founder and chairman of the Kentucky Taxpayers United. He has never held any real political office in his life. Granted you could say the same thing about Al Franken, but granted Franken was a brilliant political commentator who had a Harvard degree. Rand Paul only won this primary because he got all the rabid republicans to show up in a way larger proportion than the competant ones. Rand Paul's argument for why he should be a senator hold zero weight whatsoever.

I say let Rand Paul keep campaigning and making his lunatic statements and many Kentucky voters will have a hard time come this voting for him despite their hatred of national democrats and Obama. Not to mention that Conway is practically the best candidate democrats could have gotten to run after Ben Chandler

____________________

obamalover:

@Jmartin

How is your boy Specter doing?

____________________

tjampel:

@Field Marshal:

"Aaron,

Yes, i believe that Rand's argument was that there were better ways- more constitutional ways- to achieve the same end."

Rands ideology and person opinions is that the federal government is overstepping its bounds..."

So, if this is true, and if the overstepping occurred in 1964 (Rand is the one that brought this law up, not Maddow or the Louisville Courier Journal) doesn't it follow that the "less" constitutional path being referred to here was/is Title X of the Civil Rights Act, which used the Fed's powers under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to directly interfere with the rights of private citizens (in the form of owners of "public.
accommodations").

Didn't Rand specifically state that he had a problem with part of the act because it impinged on private rights of citizens to run their businesses as they saw fit?

If he did state that and if you support him in that statement then does this mean that you oppose Title X as well? Please do tell us. You're not running for anything so why not just state your own belief instead of, in two separate posts, defending Paul with libertarian-esque sound bites?

As I stated in a similar post on another poll thread, I don't think Rand Paul is racist at all. I think he abhors racism. But I think he does feel that Title X is an impermissible imposition on private citizens. This is a pretty typical libertarian position as it was Barry Goldwater's position in 1964. On the other hand both of KY's Republican Senators were instrumental in breaking a filibuster by none other than Sen Byrd...yeah..the same and ultimately getting this historic achievement passed.

____________________

Xenobion:

Not to poo poo this poll but Conway had more votes than Rand Paul in his own primary. Mongiardo voters obviously will go towards Conway. Question is, is there any issue that would actually bring the under-represented Kentuckian base out for Nov?

____________________

nick283:

Over 3 times as many people voted in the democrat presidential primary in kentucky in 2008. More people voted for Barack Obama than John McCain by a rather large margin. John McCain won the state by 17 points. FarLeft-A constitutional amendment outlawing abortion for whatever reason could not "violate" a previous part of the constitution because the amendment would be the constitution. Just like how expanding the franchise to 18 year olds didnt violate a previous part. Also, the establishment clause of the constitution as it was written seems to be prohibiting the establishment of a US religion like the Church of England. It doesnt demand that religion be out of the public square or that laws can't be passed that have an underlying religious motivation. I'm sure you wouldnt say that laws against slavery etc. are unconstitutional because opposition to slavery was often motivated by firm Christian beliefs. Read Lincoln's second inaugural address sometime.

____________________



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