Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

KY: 43% Conway 43% Paul (PPP 6/28-30)

Topics: Kentucky , poll

Public Policy Polling (D)
6/28-30/10; 625 likely voters, 3.9% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(PPP release)

Kentucky

2010 Senate
43% Conway (D), 43% Paul (R) (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Jack Conway: 31 / 29
Rand Paul: 34 / 42

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 37 / 58

 

Comments
Xenobion:

Good horse race here. Dems able to field a decent candidate in KY. Paul's unfavorables edging up over time... Will Conway get the funds to win this race?

____________________

Paleo:

As I said in the other thread, the issue here is Paul. You're either pro-Paul or anti-Paul. Conway can go into hibernation for the whole campaign, other than some negative adversiting, and it won't make a difference. If Paul can keep his foot out of his mouth, he'll probably win. But any unforced errors will be particularly damaging for him. Unlike more mainstream candidates.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Actually KY Democrats have had good candidates against Jim Bunning, and they came so close to winning. It looks like the GOP has pushed the envelope a little too far with Rand Paul.

I am not referring to their policies so much, but Ron Paul and Ran Paul have contrasting personalities in likeability and trust. George H W Bush was a good man who could work across partisan lines and was respected by many people who were their opposition; George W Bush was more conservative, less trustworthy and more of a tyrant than his dad.

Ron Paul seems to win a lot of respect among progressives on some issues like being against the war in Afghanistan, and libertarians as well. Rand Paul has become more like a southern style neo-con. He is extremely anti-choice, questionable remarks on race, and tough stands against building an electric fence along the border. That costs money, and libertarians don't like to spend money.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I think if Democrats see this race as winnable still by Sept. they will spend tons of money on this one and less money on ones they will probably lose, like Arkansas or Indiana.

____________________

Field Marshal:

I think you guys are overplaying Paul's stance on the issues. I think once the race gets going, the candidates debate, and the ad spots ramp up, people will see that Paul's stance on the issues are really not far off from most Kentuckians. I think Conway is only benefiting from the bashing Paul got from mostly misinformation from the left-wing media.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Well it is kind of interesting that conservatives call the media left wing, since on weekends and holidays Fox is continually portraying everything about Obama is bad and everything conservative is good; meanwhile, CNN is oversaturated with the Oil spill, and "keeping them honest". CNN may not realize it, but they are playing into the conservatives hands by being so one dimensional and focusing on this travesty. They are excluding any other issues. No wonder CNN's ratings have hit rock bottom.

MSNBC, has nothing but those stupid lockup shows on weekends, which have no relevance to issues that most Americans care about. All it shows is our prisons are so bad that they come out filled with racial hatred, and skinhead groups thrive along with Bloods and Cryps and the Latin kings. It may get the ratings, but showing this programming doesn't seem to be reforming the system.

Now Ed Shultz, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann and rachel Maddow reach out to progressives, yet they could do a better job at re-airing programs on weekends.

My point is on Saturday and sunday afternoons and evenings, Fox has actual news while the other networks really have crap on. Besides from MSNBC, I really don't see why the media is so liberal.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I think Rand Paul screwed up when he implied the civil rights bill needs changing, and just going in the direction of implying that resteraunt owners could keep out types of people or races of people they don't like was worrisome. He could have been less forthright on Maddow's program and dodged the questions with the liberal media like the other conserva-freaks seem to do. Paul simply took the bait just like Sarah Palin did.

I get annoyed at conservatives accusing liberal talk show hosts of making a fool out of Palin and other conservatives with gotcha questions.

I have seen Michael Moore, Dennis Kucinich and Steny Hoyer interviewed on Fox news and they were honest, and disagreed without denying the positions they support. If liberal guests are not interpupted all the time on Fox, I think they are pretty good at arguing their case.

I find that the far left and far right love to come on cable news shows, but it is the ones in the middle like Susan Collins or Blanche Lincoln or Scott Brown that tend to avoid them. They don't want to look like a poster board for Fox but if they come on MSNBC and are critical to Rush Limbaugh, and other extremists, the punishment from the GOP will be to face a primary challenger in the next election, and likely lose the nomination.

____________________

melvin:

I knew once the people found out what this guy policies was, the numbers would change against him.The samething is going to happen to Sharon Angle also.Now you know why these sick people was advoiding the Mainstream Media.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I know what you mean Melvin. Even those people who may not be fans of Obama have to realize that Rand Paul and Angle are politial psychos.

____________________

Bigmike:

You may notice that in early May PPP had Paul up on Conway by a mere 41-40. So this poll represents no change.

You might also notice the (D) after the PPP above. No other polling org has this race this close. Even the Kos has Paul at +3 last time they looked.

____________________

Field Marshal:

My point is on Saturday and sunday afternoons and evenings, Fox has actual news while the other networks really have crap on. Besides from MSNBC, I really don't see why the media is so liberal.

That is no different than weekdays FLAP.

And Rand Paul did screw up going on MSNBC in the first place. The few people that actually watch that garbage were never going to vote for him in the first place. Secondly, the gotcha type question plus the ridiculous response definitely hurt Paul. Given the fact that Paul would have voted for the CRA, the whole contrived controversy surrounding Paul being racist, etc. was simply far-left hyperbole and propaganda for their moronic followers.

____________________

TeaPartyRules:

Before you libs get to gushy....read the party Id's. They interviewed 52% dems vs 37% reps. Conway is going to clobbered.


Q16 If you are a Democrat, press 1. If you are a
Republican, press 2. If you are an independent
or identify with another party, press 3.
Democrat ........................................................ 52%
Republican...................................................... 37%
Independent/11%

____________________

lat:

Uh oh! In a red state like KY you have this? Hmmm? Let's see how Mr. Paul can screw himself up next? Maybe he should bring Daddy into help?

____________________

TeaPartyRules:

Looks like they really love BoBo too.

Q1 Do you approve or disapprove of President
Barack Obama’s job performance? If you
approve, press 1. If you disapprove, press 2.
If you’re not sure, press 3.
Approve .......................................................... 37%
Disapprove...................................................... 58%
Not Sure.......................................................... 5%

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Obama lost KY by 20 points and Kerry lost by about 12. Ky does still elect Democrats, since Beshear won not too long ago. I think Conway can beat the odds and win.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Well, I think the conservatives who play it cool will have a better chance to win in November. Paul and Angle have clearly communicated to the media that they are on the far right fringe, and their words will come back to haunt them.

Toomey in Contrast is doing well because he may have an ultra conservative voting record which Democrats will campaign against. Bobby Jindal isn't quite that conservative, but he has a cool demeanor which sounds conservative without sounding like a lunatic.

I sure hope Toomey doesn't win, but he doesn't come across as a wing nut. He is careful with his words and uses terms like "club for growth" which sound positive rather than coming across as crazy like Sharron Angle.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I can't wait til Oliver Stone's documentary about Hugo CHavez comes out. I wish he was our president! He would truly fix our system of governing and would truly take over corporate America, and people like Glen Beck would be off the air. Of course it will never happen, but he is a guy with guts, and I am never afraid to stick up for him. You see the extreme poverty in that country, and you understand what real disaparities are.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Kentucky is pathetic. 52-37 Democrats over Republicans took part in this poll, yet 53-38 percent of them voted for Mccain? Why would they even want to still be Democrats? I know that there are many Democrats in the south who hate northeastern candidates and didn't vote for Obama because he is black, but if they support Rand Paul, they should simply become Republican or libertarian. What self respecting Democrat would vote for Rand Paul at that?

____________________

Alex:

TeaPartyRules,

Democrats have a big advantage in party ID in Kentucky. About 56% of all registered voters are Democrats, while about 37% are Republicans. However, many of those Democrats are conservative and often vote Republican.

So with that being said, nothing was wrong with PPP's party breakdown for this poll.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I never knew that about KY, but if they are even thinking of voting for Rand Paul, they are not Democrats, and I have even told people that on the phone why be a Democrat? Conway is not a wacky liberal like Al Franken.

I can't stand people who are not loyal to their party. I would rather see them simply be a Republican or an independent. What Democrat would they vote for? Ben Nelson maybe?

____________________

Sean Murphy:

Uhh Melvin: Rand Paul actually gained support since PPP conducted their last poll so i'm not sure what you're getting at here. Also Farleft many older people in the south are still registered as Democrat even though they've been voting Republican for many years. However I doubt the electorate come Nov 2nd will be 52% Democrat and I highly doubt the residents of Kentucky will send someone to Washington to support a President and his policies considering they do not like either of.

____________________

Sean Murphy:

"I can't wait til Oliver Stone's documentary about Hugo CHavez comes out. I wish he was our president!"

Wow that just leaves me speechless. You say that now but once your freedoms erode under a President Chavez you'd be singing a different tune.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Well I just don't see the point of being registered Democrat if you would even consider voting for Rand Paul. I know that Obama didn't do well in West Virginia, but the voters couldn't connect with him. Doesn't mean they have voted for Two Democratic senators and governors for years. I have to ask if you are a registered Democrat and would vote for Rand Paul, what kind of Democrat candidate would you vote for? It seems pointless to me.

____________________

lat:

Rand Paul is a hell of a guy!

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Well I am so sick of seeing the tea party people complain about Obama being a tyrant. Perhaps if they lived in a country with a real tyrant, they may not complain. I think Obama can be a pussy at times and just doesn't stand up to his opposition. I get so frustrated as a progressive and not seeing leadership, I would like to see a more authoritarian leader.

Of course the US is not a third world country like Venezuela, but I have to say Chavez has guts. He is a "hell of a guy". About 8 percent of the population of Venezuela used to own 90 percent of the wealth and now it has improved. I think in our country, something like 15 percent of the population owns 60 percent of the wealth. I am not certain of the statistics but they are bad. These are not the small businesses that own this wealth it is wall street and large corporations.

Of course there will be no wealth re-destribution in America since rich White large corporations own America. Corporations according to the high court are considered people who can have the pleasure to violate every pre-existing campaign law.

Besides if you listen to the tyrants of the Far right and what they want like Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck, they want the same kind of tyranny from the far right, that Hugo Chavez would want from the far left.

____________________

Sean Murphy:

"I would like to see a more authoritarian leader"

Why? Are you not aware of the document called the Constitution? It restricts Federal powers from doing the very things you would like to see and I guess that pisses you off.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Well there are many directions you can go in the constitution. I think you don't really know much about Chavez. He really isn't the great tyrant Fox news has demonized him to be.

My point has been that our country spends so much debating and fighting each other and we have all these fillibuster laws that in reality nothing gets done.

The constitution is open to interpretation, but I think more legislation should be able to be passed without all these fillibuster threats. That was originally a Republican idea called the "nuclear option" so both parties are guilty of tyranny.

There are certain elements of the constitution that need to be rewritten in my opinion and conservatives likewise want to rewrite our constitution to change naturalation laws for children of immigrants.

____________________

dpearl:

FL&P: I am also baffled by your infatuation with Hugo Chavez. Many socialist leaders have also been democratic (small “d”) in their philosophies and practice. Chavez is not one of them. He is an anti-intellectual, opportunistic, egotistical power grabber. He manages to poison every compelling initiative. Programs I would otherwise applaud like providing free education – quickly become distorted with attacks on freedom of thought and mandatory indoctrinations from his personal reading list.

____________________

tjampel:

TeaPartyRules:

Before you libs get to gushy....read the party Id's. They interviewed 52% dems vs 37% reps. Conway is going to clobbered.


Q16 If you are a Democrat, press 1. If you are a
Republican, press 2. If you are an independent
or identify with another party, press 3.
Democrat ........................................................ 52%
Republican...................................................... 37%
Independent/11%


KY party affiliation:

Dem- 1,619,391 Repub- 1,052,902

How is the above question and answer indicative of a Paul landslide. Did I miss something?

____________________

Bigmike:

FLAP

I reread your post several times jut to make sure it wasn't Oliver Stone you wish was our President. Nope, it was Chavez.

I have in the past felt your posts were worth reading, just to see what the other side is thinking. But now I know you are over the edge. Way over. And I am seriously questioning if there is a reason to read anything else you post in the future.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

It is a free country Bigmike...you don't have to read my posts if they are too radical for you.

Well my point is that the kinds of leaders the conservatives nominate want to infringe on many rights that many people think are sacred. I don't see Chavez invading other countries and nationbuilding. Our country spends fortunes on foreign wars, and gives tax cuts to the very rich. I don't think that is a real democracy, and is a tyranny from corporate America, and in many states our leaders are theocratic and use religious principles in government. Not everyone wants that to be a part of our government; we have freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion.

With all the myths about our Democracy and why we are are a Democracy for the few.

____________________

Cody Jones:

@Sean Murphy

You cannot even say that the founding fathers wanted to limit the authority of the federal government!!! The first 2 Presidents were apart of the FEDERALIST party. The political party which advocated a STRONG federal government. In fact when Pennsylvania brewers didnt wanna pay a simple beer tax George Washington called in the calvary and sent troops to force them to pay taxes. Adams was one of the authors of the constitutions and was EXTREMELY liberal so you cannot even say that what Farleft wants is against the constitution!

____________________

Cody Jones:

@Sean Murphy

You cannot even say that the founding fathers wanted to limit the authority of the federal government!!! The first 2 Presidents were apart of the FEDERALIST party. The political party which advocated a STRONG federal government. In fact when Pennsylvania brewers didnt wanna pay a simple beer tax George Washington called in the calvary and sent troops to force them to pay taxes. Adams was one of the authors of the constitutions and was EXTREMELY liberal so you cannot even say that what Farleft wants is against the constitution!

____________________

Cody Jones:

@Sean Murphy

You cannot even say that the founding fathers wanted to limit the authority of the federal government!!! The first 2 Presidents were apart of the FEDERALIST party. The political party which advocated a STRONG federal government. In fact when Pennsylvania brewers didnt wanna pay a simple beer tax George Washington called in the calvary and sent troops to force them to pay taxes. Adams was one of the authors of the constitutions and was EXTREMELY liberal so you cannot even say that what Farleft wants is against the constitution!

____________________

Field Marshal:

Yeah, but its the right that are the "crazies" and "wingnuts". SUUUUUUUUUREEEEEEE!!

Unbelievable.

____________________

Sean Murphy:

"With all the myths about our Democracy and why we are are a Democracy for the few"

We're not a Democracy we're a Republic.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I think when I see so much obstructionism from the right wing in this country to do everything not to work with the president, I don't call that a Democracy. I remember the 6 hellish years where Bush was in control and there were always a few Democrats who would vote along with him and many others tried hard. The GOP doesn't follow the golden rule, and I think the conservative ones intimidate the few moderate ones left. That is why they were united from the start to manipulate the few moderate senators to obstruct Obama, and it has worked.

I get so frustrated sometimes with a dysfunctinal democracy that I am ready to give up on Democracy all together. What good is any government where nothing is accomplished because of obstruction.

____________________

hoosier_gary:

"I can't wait til Oliver Stone's documentary about Hugo CHavez comes out. I wish he was our president! "

That is just about the most stupid think I have heard a liberal say yet. You really have no idea who Chavez is and what he stands for, do you?

Did you hear his claims that the Haiti earthquake was caused by Obama testing his new earthquake machine? I'm not making that up. Go see for yourself.

You cheer because he would shut down a radio program simply because he didn't like it? Is that a liberal principal - government controlled press? I think Keith Olbermann is the most vile lying hate-filled pig on TV but I would never call for the government to shut down his show.

You really need to do some reading on Chavez before you run off at the mouth praising him again - and wishing he was our "president". That makes you look like a moron.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

He is a bit of a wacky guy, Chavez is. Well that is an understatement. I may take back what I said about wanting him to be president, however I would prefer him to Bush or John Mccain had Mccain and Palin ruled this country.

You said that he said "the Haiti earthquake was caused by Obama testing his new earthquake machine? I'm not making that up. Go see for yourself."

If that is true that was a bit out of hand, but that isn't any worse than many comments some people like Limbaugh and Glen Beck and Pat Robertson say all the time. Part Robertson wanted the US Military to invade Venezeuala and take out Chavez. If you look at the history of latin America their tyrants have mostly been landed aristocrats who are oppressors. Chavez in many ways has done what Fidel Castro has done. The US continues to support hostile regimes like the Chinese, yet Cuba is still on our shit list, even with Obama as president.

Perhaps Obama deep down inside would like to be friends with Chavez, but Obama has pissed him off because Obama has been forced by his conservative military advisers to continue to demonize Chavez. Meanwhile the Chinese will slaughter millions yet they are our biggest trading partners who we are dependent on. Mexico are our allies too yet, the Government can't even keep the drug bandits under control. At least Chavez has created a sense of order in his country, and that is one thing I can't say about Mexico and many other Capitalistic regimes.

____________________

hoosier_gary:

You're pathetic. You are un-American with comments comparing a ruthless maniac like Chavez to any American - especially someone who fought for your sorry ass and spent years in prison being tortured.

We get it - you hate anyone who isn't a liberal. I didn't think you would sink this low.

But you'll fit right in here now that pollster.com is going to be run by another Chavez lover - Arianna Huffington. You're liberal nonsense will fit right in with the morons who run and read that site.

I'm done here. This will just become an outlet arm for the hate-file looney lefty pigs at huff-po.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Hoosier Gary: Calling me Un-American is exactly what I predicted you would say. If you think Chavez is a maniac why is it that you righties never critisize Limbaugh or Glenn Beck when they go too far. Limbaugh said that health care reform in the US triggered Iceland's extreme fog. Virginia Fox the Rep from NC said that Obamacare was worse than terrorism. If you think Chavez's comments were pathetic, I think comparing terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11 or someone like Tim McVeigh isn't as bad as passing health care reform.

At least Chavez isn't an American or elected to the US house. When I take a look at theories of the imaginary death panels or conspiracies from groups like the NRA that the United Nations has a conspiracy to create a world government, and include the United states as part of that is psychotic. My God, Canada has less restrictive gun laws than many parts of the US and they seem to be a functioning democracy.

And Hoosier Gary, Bush and the warlords at Guantanomo either ordered the torture themselves or knew about the torture and did nothing about it. Mccain said he was against torture before he was the GOP nominee and after that said it was justified under certain circumstances. I am sure Chavez's human rights record isn't good, but his country has never had a good human rights record. They have almost always been controlled by a tyrant.

I admit that I don't think I would want a tyrant like Chavez running our country, but I still admire what he has done for his own country to liberate peasants who lived in filth and dirt, and there was tremendous corruption by the landed aristocracy. The United states has tended to take sides in Latin America; Allende in Chile was assasinated by the CIA under Richard Nixon and in his place was the butcher of Chile named Pinochet. He was a tyrant who the US governments under Nixon, Carter and Reagan were buddy buddy with. The US in the mid 1950's killed a leader in a Central American country because he wanted to nationalize the United Fruit Company.

Lets face it, Sadaam Hussein was considered an ally until he gassed the kurds. The Reagan administration sent him arms. Weren't we duped by that tyrant? How could our government support an evil man like Sadaam against another hostile Country, Iran, while we demonized Fidel Castro from the early 60's through today. It just doesn't make sense. Castro is a saint compared to many of the tyrants our government has supported, and that is what makes me angry at our level of hypocrisy.

Most countries in the world like Canada, Spain and more and more France don't take sides in these undemocratic countries. The US has basically supported many regimes who torture and enslave their people. That is wrong.

____________________

ndirish11:

Rand Paul is not Ron Paul and that's part of the problem. Out-of state Ron Paul followers are not nearly as excited about Rand Paul anymore.

Ron Paul is for economic freedom, social freedom and against both wars and our foreign occupations.

Rand Paul is for economic freedom, more conservative when it comes to social issues, and is for the war in Afghanistan, very iffy on the Iraq war, and is just a lot more hawkish on foreign policy in general than his dad.

Basically Ron is libertarian while Rand is more of a today's usual Republican. Rand talks a lot about the economy and budget because its the one place his out of state libertarians and KY Republicans agree on. He puts a different mask on to his dad's supporters and different mask to his KY Republicans. It's no longer working.

____________________

tjampel:

ndirish11:

"Basically Ron is libertarian while Rand is more of a today's usual Republican. Rand talks a lot about the economy and budget because its the one place his out of state libertarians and KY Republicans agree on. He puts a different mask on to his dad's supporters and different mask to his KY Republicans. It's no longer working."

Great analysis.

Rand can talk the talk to libertarians but can't run in KY as one if he wants to win as a Republican. He's tried to have it both ways. It worked in the primary...perfectly, but he's been burned repeatedly since then, because his instincts and true beliefs are not entirely Republican mainstream beliefs and they just seem have a way of emerging. Rand just being Rand.

If he wanted to do this right, and perhaps have a chance to win, a la Charlie Crist he would have NOT run as a Republican at all. He would have told Mitch McConnell to shove it and secured the Libertarian Party endorsement and then espoused a much more pure libertarian platform, which he always hints at (as you say), but never commits to, when speaking to Ron's folks.

He might actually have won in the 3-way race simply because he has a very strong base of about 30% who will vote for him over anyone else. I can see him pulling a Crist and bleeding off enough of Grayson's vote plus getting the anti-war vote as well, rather than Conway blowing them both away. It would have been fun at least and Paul could have actually played himself in the campaign instead of some kind of quasi-imposter playing a mainstream Republican (which is what we'll probably get for the next 3 1/2 months.

Well...that would have been the more honorable course of action perhaps but, who can blame him for running as a Republican. It had to seem like a no brainer. And he may still win going away. We'll see.

I have to admit this. I actually had a lot of respect for Ron in'08, simply because he spoke his true beliefs and was undeterred by popular opinion or conventional wisdom about what conservatives are supposed to say (truth to power, I guess). His opposition to the war in Afghanistan is a good example of this. That's very rare in Washington and makes him rather unique. He and Kucinich both do this, and they agree on the war, at least...but poles apart on nearly everything else!

____________________

ndirish11:

tjampel:

I agree. A lot of liberals and conservatives both have respect for Ron Paul even if they don't agree entirely. Today's liberals like how he is for protecting civil liberties/personal freedom and how he is for ending the wars. Today's conservatives who are true fiscal conservatives like his economic views.

Kucinich and him agree on social issues for the most part (what the federal government should do about them), they agree on foreign policy 100%, but they do differ in economics. They both have a unique quality called honesty. They both speak their minds, (see both Democratic and Republican 2008 debates) and they say what they believe.
That above all other reasons is why if they were given the nomination, they said they would consider the other for VP

____________________

Paleo:

Here's another nutjob running for senate who can't stop her pro-BP views from coming out:

"Government shouldn't be doing that to a private company."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/07/08/angle_calls_oil_spill_escrow_a_slush_fund.html

____________________

Steve Herold:

To FARLEFTANDPROUD, I could understand some of your arguments. But you really lost me when you said you wish that Chavez was our president. I really would like to know if you would feel that way if you had lived there for a couple of years? Maybe you should read some of the reports from "Human Rights Watch".

____________________



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