Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

KY: 49% Paul, 42% Conway (Rasmussen 6/28)

Topics: Kentucky , poll

Rasmussen
6/28/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

Kentucky

2010 Senate
49% Paul (R), 42% Conway (D) (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Rand Paul: 55 / 38
Jack Conway: 51 / 35

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 41 / 58
Gov. Beshear: 53 / 44

 

Comments
Paleo:

Conway remains in striking distance. If he can smoke Paul out of his bubble, and Paul mouths off his true Randian beliefs, he can win.

____________________

vincent106:

Paul will win this by 10 points, minimum.

____________________

hoosier_gary:

Looks like trying to play the race card on Paul was a failure. 55% favorable. Isn't that higher than before the race-baiters tried their ploy?

58% disapprove of Obama. Do you think those 58% are going to vote to send someone to the senate to help him?

Do you think Conway will ask Obama to come campaign for him?

____________________

iVote:

This is the closest Conway's ever been to Rand Paul. He seems to be closing the gap.

____________________

Stillow:

hoosier_gary: - No, Conway does not want barry anywhere near KY during the campaign.

Yes the race baiters failed in KY as they are nearly everywhere these days. that tactic is fast becoming useless. The left will ifnally have to move on from at least that dirty trick.

____________________

Field Marshal:

But after that, what will they say? Race-baiting is the only thing they have. Otherwise they may actually have to think. Poor, poor, baiters.

____________________

Paleo:

Race card? Yeah, right. All you need is for Ayn Rand Paul to open his mouth and state his true beliefs.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I think anything can happen. Sen. Nelson in Nebraska, and Daschle, Kent Conrad and others in states where Clinton was very unpopular won in the 1990's. I think KY may have a shot because of Paul's extremism, which will bring out more less likely voters.

____________________

Stillow:

FM - I honestly don't know what trick they will resort to as their "go to" tactic when they lose the debate. as we both know whenever they lose a debate or get beat in the realm of public opinion they resort to race baiting measures. they've been doing that for a long time now. It seems to finally be getting old and people are catching onto their baiting for what it is.

Your guess is as good as mine as to what will replace race baiting for the Dems as their default response to a lost debate.

____________________

Paleo:

Gee, we are witnessing race-baiting baiting on this thread. You folks and your strawman can throw your line somewhere else.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Lets face it; most people don't really follow politics like we do, and in KY like other states many people are busy and probably aren't aware of the candidates running for Senate. I am sure as the race gets closer, Conway will be able to run more ads, and I think Rand Paul is so out of the mainstream that will resonate with people; Jim Bunning never won by very much; he won by 2 points in 04 while George W. Bush won by about 12-15 over Kerry. That would mean that about 10 percent of the voters who voted for Bush, also voted for the Democrat for Senate.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

After hearing about Paul's comments about installing electrical fences that could kill people trying to come over the border, it really did remind me of something Himler or Goebels thought up, and Paul has also supported deporting children born in the US to foreign parents, which violates our constitution.

George W. Bush only supported electricution against condemned criminals; the more I hear about Rand Paul, Dubya actually does look like a Compassionate conservative in comparison.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Watch out Farleft, Obamalover will be on here proclaiming how he is jewish and how you're being anti-semitic (and probably racist as well).

____________________

Xenobion:

The right has never used race baiting as a tactic. They are perfect blonde hair, blue eyed individuals. You could perhaps call them perfect. They never outright say race with any legislation and I'd be surprised if they ever have insinuated it either. /swoon

____________________

hoosier_gary:

Have you ever been in Kentucky, FarLeft? My mother was born there and I have relatives there. Paul is completely mainstream Kentucky. Conway is the one whose views are extreme to Kentuckians. Only 20% of the country's voters are liberal and I doubt any of them live in Kentucky. It's probably illegal there.

FM: You have your answer. Since race baiting has failed, the left is calling Paul a Nazi. When that fails, I'm not sure what they'll call him. A great big meanie? A booger head?

____________________

vincent106:

@field,

I find it interesting some of the loonylefties on here who come out complaining about race baiters but never complain about the posters who continuously use racism in their posts. fascinating.

____________________

Xenobion:

@vincent106

Cause I have better things to do with my time than police someone's individual racism that happened on the internet vs. instances of my government being racist in one way or another. There's quite a difference.

____________________

vincent106:

@xenobion

Is there? Seems to me made up racism at the government level and made up racism at the individual level is one in the same. Both suggest that you dont have better things to do with your time. Or just lack more intellectual thinkgs to post.

____________________

melvin:

Its going to be a sad day in hell if this guy goes to the Senate,how can this man be leading when he wont even talk to the media.Paul is going to put the Republican party back 145 years along with Angle.

____________________

Paul Panasiuk:

OKay, this whole extremism thing needs to stop. How is Rand Paul in anyway an extremist??

Let me give you some examples. Right now under the Disability Act small farmers that want to go into business must build facilities complete with bathrooms and lockerrooms that are completely wheelchair accessible. These facilities cost upwards of 150,000 dollars making it impossible for the vast majority of farmers to start a business and survive. Why do you think we have agribusiness taking over day by day?

As far as foreign policy, Rand wants to bring the troops home. Is that so extreme and far off from YOUR beliefs?
Do you not want to limit the militaryindustrial complex?

As far as spending, is it so extreme that we should have a balanced budget? Is it so extreme that we should stop borrowing billions of dollars from china to subsidize our consumerism?

Come on now people. Be a free thinker for once.

____________________

Field Marshal:

He's only extremist when you view him through the scope-of-thinking that Chavez, Mao and other far-left dictators are "good guys" like some of the lefties on this board do.

____________________

melvin:

Sharon Angle proved in that interview what a nut job she is,she shares the same views Rand Paul do,the Nevada media is having a field day with Angle,she wants to dump toxic waste in Nevada OMG this woman is a complete Wacko,in if anyone supports this Wacko have to be one themselves.

____________________

Stillow:

Paul Panasiuk: - Being a free thinker and liberal/progressive at the same time is a contradiction. By definition a liberal/progressive must outsource their thinking to g'ment. Without g'ment to provide their lives with meaning and purpose, they are but lost sheep grazing the countryside alone and frightened.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Stillow,

Government is the blanket for liberals to pull over the heads so they cannot see for they are scared of the big, bad, world out there.

____________________

Jamesautomatic:

Are you all finished with your "libruls suck" circle jerk? Rand Paul suggested that it should be legal for businesses to discriminate based on race. He said he personally wouldn't patronize such businesses, but that the government shouldn't stop them. That is an extreme (as in, out of the mainstream) opinion. You may agree with it, particularly if you're a libertarian, but that doesn't make it a mainstream opinion.

____________________

DB:

I'm considering the source of this poll, so in reality, this race is probably much much closer right now. November is still a ways away, though.

____________________

tjampel:

hoosier_gary:

"Looks like trying to play the race card on Paul was a failure. 55% favorable. Isn't that higher than before the race-baiters tried their ploy?"

NO, wrong again. Ras had Rand at 56/31 right before the primary (in April). So his unfavorables have risen by 7% since then.

As for the idea that I played the race card, my response below:

Some of us are actually offended that anyone in 2010 would still object, on constitutional grounds, to the Civil Rights Act provision which makes it unlawful for public accommodations to deny access to members of the public based on race. That's especially true in that the issue is considered settled law. We wonder why someone like Rand Paul would bring this issue up and challenge settled law after all these years. We think it was foolish, but, we also think it was consistent and an expression of his libertarian philosophy. In that sense we believe that this is something he really feels strongly about, and that troubles us because, as a member of the US Sentate he'll be in a position to weigh in on future laws aimed at preventing discrimination.

I doubt Rand's a racist and have said so in prior posts. The concern from us is about Rand Paul envisioning a world in which the US government lacks the power to enforce the Equal Protection clause through existing Constitutional powers, specifically, in this case, the Interstate Commerce clause.

If the Gov lacks that power it definitely allows public accommodations to discriminate based on race. It also allows a whole host of other discriminatory and possibly hazardous activities (by extension) (e.g. ability to perform health inspections for salmonella) that many of us wouldn't approve of.

So, for me, it's a legitimate issue. It's not using the race card. It's all about calling any candidate out for standing up for libertarian policies which, while they sound wonderfully empowering, may serve to severely restrict the rights and privileges of some (blacks, in this case), disabled in other cases.

____________________

Stillow:

Jamesautomatic - Every racial quota system and affirmative action program imposed on business by liberals discriminates against people based on race. So please spare us all the liberal holier than thou crap.

Liberals embrace various forms of racial discrimination, but because g'ment tells you that their brand of racial discrimination is ok, you of course fall to your knees at g'ments request and support it.

____________________

Field Marshal:

tjampel,

Given that Rand said he would have voted for the civil rights bill, your diatribe knocking him is bogus. How is being against something on constitutional grounds ever offensive? That's ridiculous,

I would never say its offensive that in 2010 4 justices would object on constitutional ground a persons right to bear arms. Or in 2010, that someone would accept the unnecessary killing of an unborn child.

____________________

tjampel:

FM;

What's wrong with knocking Rand for something he said when I think it would be terrible policy if his real beliefs (as I understand them) ever became law?

Rand said he had a problem with part of the bill. That troubles me because he's going to be helping to shape the future of this country if he wins. I believe Rand's opposition to the Public Accommodations provision of the Civil Rights Act on constitutional grounds is a principled one (from his side, at least). It's based on what I believe are Rand's core beliefs about the role of the US Gov in attempting to restrict property rights and other rights of private citizens.

I toyed with libertarianism years ago and abandoned it for the same reason I oppose Dr Rand's apparent espousing of it here. I do not believe that people are inherently compassionate or kind or fair, and I do believe that, where not prohibited by the Constitution our government should act to protect, from unlawful discrimination those who are hated, and taken advantage of solely because of their attributes at birth.

The 14th amendment was designed to do just that, in all places where the Federal Gov has the constitutional right to act...such as...public accommodations. If Rand disagrees with that I think he's fair game. He should be attacked for those views because he may assert them in the future. That's a future I want to avoid.

As for the fact that he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act, who cares? We seem to be talking way past each other. I'm worried about a guy who would fetter the Gov where the Constitution says it can and should act. You talk about race. Forget about race. Rand's quasi-absolutist views on property rights are what I care about.

Do you agree with Rand? Or do you not wish to address this issue. If you agree then you may be more like me 20 years ago than I'd like to admit.

____________________

Sean Murphy:

Tjampel:

You seem to be confusing public with private. Rand Paul absolutely believes public institutions like public schools should have been desegregated. To me public accomodations implies those facilities that are run by the government whether it be local or state.

____________________

tjampel:

Fm

"I would never say its offensive that in 2010 4 justices would object on constitutional ground a persons right to bear arms. Or in 2010, that someone would accept the unnecessary killing of an unborn child. "

We're talking about a candidate opposing the actions of the Supreme Court---not what Justices do; it's their job to rule one way or another on the matters that come before them.

Please answer this hypothetical:

Say you believe that the 2nd Amendment provides a fundamental right to bear arms, and a Democratic candidate in Chicago totally trashes the Supreme Court's ruling in McDonald this week (overturning the Chicago gun ban law), claiming that the 2nd Amendment says no such thing are saying that you would feel constrained by the fact that this politician was merely discussing the Constitution and so ....hands off her/him! What a joker you are!

It's NOT a candidate's job to dredge up 50 year old settled law and claim that it's constitutionally deficient. They do this because they're trying to make a point. That point is understood by me to mean that Rand opposes the right of this Government to force him to behave in certain ways towards others where his business is to provide accommodation (through food, drink, lodging, etc.) to the public. He believes that we should all have the right to just "serve whomever we damn well want to serve"/ He opposes racism but his belief in the sanctity of property rights is greater (if one were to apply a balancing act here, which is exactly what the court has done in cases such as these).

This is totally fair game, just as it would be if a candidate is crazy enough (you hear that Michelle) to claim that the right of citizenship to those born in the US isn't really a Constitutional right after all....if they happen to be an anchor baby. That the US Constitution didn't really intend this provision to be applied to illegal aliens. (forgetting for the moment that anyone could enter the US (who was not deemed an enemy at war with us) and settle there at the time the Constitution was written). If anyone were to assert that I seriously hope you're not claiming that it would be wrong to attack them for it because they're making a constitutional argument.

____________________

Stillow:

tjampel - How can you actually say that people are not inherantly kind or compassionate, espeically in this country. Americans give billions to charities in their communities. Our armed forces is made up entirely of volunteers. Whenever there is a crisis Americans from all over come to assist with cash donaitions or man power.

People are indeed inherantly kind hearted and compassionate people. There are some bad apples in the bunch, but most people I know woudl bend over backwards to aid a freind in need or to rally together in a time of crisis. No one forces americans to igve to chairty, but we do it because its who we are. Part of the american soul is having your neighbors back......I'm stunned that you would make such a comment.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Oh Rand, he is so awesome. The utterance of his belief increased the relevance of my Goldwater article by a factor of 10. Now 3 journals want it whereas before I was having trouble pitching it.

Rand's position is almost word-for-word the Goldwater position which was indeed extreme. Goldwater opposed the public accomodations clause because he saw it as a violation of the constitution, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, states rights, property rights, etc...

In Arizona there was little of the segregation they had in the south, there were also few blacks (~2% of AZ in 1960) but that was beside the point. Goldwater personally was as far from racist as anyone could be, he had been a member of the AZ NAACP before they kicked him out and did a lot of good for Native Americans in his state. But that didn't cover up the fact that he would have allowed businesses to have "colored only" signs in the south until who knows when. He felt you could use moral suasion against those buinesses and the free market would finally impact them. That might have taken decades, IF it happened at all.

He also felt "Brown v Board of Education" went far beyond the Court's authority. He was extremist in the sense that he felt the court's decisions regarding civil rights were not final, that they violated the constitution.

For what it's worth, both Goldwater and William F. Buckley repudiated their former civil rights positions late in life. Quote Buckley in 2004: "We couldn't have evolved out of Jim Crow."

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"People are indeed inherantly kind hearted and compassionate people."

People are compassionate people? LOL, but I see what you mean.

Sometimes they are and sometimes they're not. I've seen people that are usually nice treat others like absolute crap for no other reason than they're in a bad mood. Theoretically, there is no reason you should take out your mood on people that have nothing to do with it.

Also, I think there are enough examples throughout history of one group of people treating another group terribly. If we had nothing but goodness in our hearts there would never be wars. Yet fighting is the one constant in human history. I would never doubt man's ability to be inhumane to other men.

Generally, I think it's easier to treat individuals with kindness. It's much harder to persuade groups of people to help other groups.

Ie: a mother and father go around and raise donations for their child suffering from leukemia. A lot of people will help her when shown her picture and told the story. But if you ask people to donate on a regular basis to help children everywhere suffering from leukemia...well that's much harder.

____________________

lat:

You righties crack me up with you trying to mask your racist beliefs by saying you are standing up for the constitution. Spare me! Rand Paul is a vile piece of crap who lives in the stone age. You can be a conservative and still command respect, but Rand Paul deserves nothing other disdain.

____________________

tjampel:

Stillow:

tjampel - How can you actually say that people are not inherantly kind or compassionate, espeically in this country.


We can be very kind and we can be very cruel. I'm not concerned with competing with other countries for the title of most kind. I am concerned with what I see as reflecting an attitude of "me first" and screw you.

Yes, I saw how people come together in times of crises. I was in downtown NYC after 911. The difference between how people behaved then an how they behave at other times is startling.

The only wonderful thing about my otherwise horrible experience during 911 was the sudden outpouring of kindness and generosity of my fellow New Yorkers; it's as if they suddenly lost all their usual selfishness and cynicism and mistrust towards each other. They treated each other with great compassion during those weeks and months of collective suffering.

Can you really say that the people of this country treat each other the way they would like to be treated themselves? That they make an equal effort to bring happiness to others as they do to bring happiness to themselves? That they act with patience and compassion with other attack them? That they heal the sick who can't afford to heal themselves, house the homeless, feed the hungry? That they oppose the death penalty for BOTH a living human being outside the womb at least as much as they might for a fetus?

Those are tenets taught by the major religions I know, for example:

"Love thy neighbor as thyself" "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you"; for you were without shelter and I sheltered you; for you were without food,...etc.; though shalt not kill. Blessed be the meek for they shall inherit the earth (meek here means those who don't rise up in anger, not the poor), It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, etc. These should never be seen as aspirational. This is how we were asked to behave on a day to day basis. If you say otherwise you ignore the teachings of this great spiritual teacher. Buddhism, which I know best, has ALL of these same tenets. There is no difference at all. I doubt there's much difference for other religions based on what I know.

I could go on and on but the point is clear. We don't even come close to living up to these basic tenets. We essentially mock them with our greedy and self-absorbed lifestyle and our superiority to other nations and people, generally.

Sure...other people in other nations are generally even worse. So what? For you to say that we compare well with people in Mexico is meaningless to me if the people of Mexico are basically running around like loons killing each other and we're merely miserly, self-absorbed and lacking in compassion.

I am all for tiny...miniscule...government IF people were really treating each other the way the bible tells us to. But we're not. Period.
For example:

We make value judgments about whether others are deserving of medical care (let's call tit "death panels") and we conclude that the answer is ...no. And, as a result many Americans (45k, according to the Harvard study...use your own figure if you like (and back it up please) die right here in this country for things that shouldn't matter at all....like lack of money/insurance. Preserving life should be something we just do because it's right. No one gets turned away from an emergency room. The same should be true for providing life-saving treatment that most Americans are able to get (not talking about high-end experimental treatments that can't be made available for most of us)

Regarding this one issue those who oppose Gov health plans and realize that private charities can't afford to pay for it will imply (without coming out and saying it directly) that the life of this person is less valuable and less deserving of being saved than theirs. They will say that, if you have the money you can get this life saving treatment and if you don't ...uh...sorry, it's just too expensive for the rest of us to chip in for. I say that this is un-Christian and un-Jewish, and un Buddhist, etc.

By the way this isn't a Democratic rant. Democrats are every bit as lacking in compassion as Republicans. I know plenty of Dems who pull the lever for people who espouse government handouts but whom, in their personal lives, are completely lacking in compassion. I used to have a well-known liberal columnist as a neighbor in my co-op in NYC, who was a completely self-absorbed and inconsiderate jerk, by both my own reckoning and that of everyone else in the building who knew him. By the same token there are Republicans who are for small government and who are extremely generous with their time and money. Self absorption, self-aggrandizement, selfishness, self-pity, etc. know no political affiliation.

Lastly we should never get so smug about ourselves and should always realize what evils we're capable of inflicting on each other. Just look at how this country treated women and blacks in 1800. Both were little more than chattel And this was thought to be just fine in this Christian nation. Think AL in 1964 just before Civil Rights Act and what the most beloved politicians there and in MS and AR (in 1954) were saying. "Segregation forever". How kind and compassionate is that? Today we've apparently decided that the Geneva Conventions are out of style and that it's fine to torture prisoners. They think it's tough Christian love I guess. We also love to watch shows were people are violent towards each other, fight each other, etc. I remember going to an ice hockey game years ago where the biggest thrill was the fighting. Many people feel that, if there's no crash an auto race is boring....etc. People love to read and watch about celebrities falling from grace or being self-destructive, instead of being repelled. No need to go on; you know the drill. Yeah, we're better than a lot of others; we still are not fundamentally compassionate.

Sorry for the length of this. I would love to agree with you and feel hopeful about this country and the world at large. Show me evidence that I should feel that way (other than the fact that some of us give a lot and we band together when there's a crisis).

____________________

tjampel:

Sean Murphy:

Tjampel:

"You seem to be confusing public with private. Rand Paul absolutely believes public institutions like public schools should have been desegregated. To me public accomodations implies those facilities that are run by the government whether it be local or state."

Public Accommodations are private business open to the public which are held to be doing business across state lines. These include restaurants, hotels, etc.

I am NOT faulting Dr. Paul regarding publicly owned facilities at all.


____________________

CHRIS MERKEY:

TJ I always love your posts. Keep it up!!!!

On another note, the righties are going to flip today. Siena did a poll of historians ranking all of the presidents on several attributes. FDR was #1. However, Clinton and Obama were both ahead of Reagan. Bush was in the bottom 5. He was the 2nd to the last in intelligence. THose commie liberal historians, I can hear it already.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Siena did a poll of historians "

Those that are looking for a historical rehabilitation of Bush better not hold their breath.

Not a good idea to rank Obama yet though.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Did you look at that ranking Chris. It was a survey of "238 presidential scholars". Most of them are professors. HMMMMM, what ideology do professors tend to be....

What a joke. The fact that FDR was ahead of Lincoln shows what a farce that ranking was. I see even "presidential scholars" drink a lot of kool-aid.

____________________

tjampel:

Field Marshal:
....

What a joke. The fact that FDR was ahead of Lincoln shows what a farce that ranking was. I see even "presidential scholars" drink a lot of kool-aid.

There's an old story about a king who was advised by his resident soothsayer that the water supply in the kingdom was about to become poisoned and that he should be careful.

The king duly avoided drinking from the public water supply and drank only from his own royal supply (or perhaps only drank perrier). The prediction turned out to be correct. Everyone in the kingdom ....except the king himself...became crazy as a result of the poison (but remained completely healthy).

Thereafter the populace naturally concluded that the king must be crazy because his behavior was totally different from theirs. The king, suffering from this terrible loss of confidence, decided that the only was he could continue to rule over his subjects was to drink the public (poisoned) water. Thereafter, he had a long and successful reign.

Perhaps if most of the country's Presidential scholars have drunk the poison, it's time for YOU to have yours :-)


____________________

Field Marshal:

Tjampel:

Good anecdote. I sometimes feel that way. I usually just conclude that I'm smarter than most people and yet, my vote is equal in worth to the dumbest people.

As far as that Siena polling, i don't think I've ever seen as much group-think than in presidential scholarship and in professors of the social sciences and liberal arts. Its a shame too because, i feel, eventually, we will bring down the best higher education system in the world to where our public school system currently stands.

____________________

tjampel:

CHRIS MERKEY:
...the righties are going to flip today. Siena did a poll of historians ranking all of the presidents on several attributes. FDR was #1. However, Clinton and Obama were both ahead of Reagan. Bush was in the bottom 5. He was the 2nd to the last in intelligence. THose commie liberal historians, I can hear it already.

Right you are!

Now, if you can only predict the outcome of the 9th race at Saratoga...

Thanks, btw :-)

____________________



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