Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

WI: 2010 Gov, Sen (PPP 6/26-27)

Topics: Governor , Poll , Senate , Wisconsin

Public Policy Polling (D)
6/26-27/10; 638 likely voters, 3.9% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(PPP release)
Update: Governor

Wisconsin

2010 Governor
41% Neumann (R), 36% Barrett (D) (chart)
45% Walker (R), 38% Barrett (D) (chart)

2010 Senate
45% Feingold (D), 43% Johnson (R)
45% Feingold (D), 38% Westlake (R) (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Tom Barrett: 28 / 30
Mark Neumann: 18 / 35
Scott Walker: 36 / 28
Jake Westlake: 6 / 14
Ron Johnson: 20 / 18

Job Approval / Disapproval
Gov. Doyle: 28 / 59 (chart)
Pres. Obama: 45 / 50 (chart)
Sen. Kohl: 47 / 34 (chart)
Sen. Feingold 42 / 42 (chart)

 

Comments
Paleo:

Feingold never wins big. He hasn't topped 55%. In '98, he beat Mark Neuman by 3%, after trailing him for a good part of the fall. He'll win this race also.

His self-imposed contribution restriction is a factor, but it's also the nature of the state, which is closely divided.

____________________

JMSTiger:

This poll confirms what Rasmussen showed a week or so ago (and of course, a sizable number of people here immediately discounted and ridiculed that particular poll). Feingold will most likely win in the end, but it will be very close. This is a terrible environment for Democrats, Wisconsin is far more divided politically than many people realize and this Johnson fella is not a nutjob, but rather a respected businessman with fairly mainstream conservative views.

____________________

Field Marshal:

A state that Obama won by 14 points now shows him underwater by 5.

Q2 Do you support or oppose President Obama's
health care plan, or are you not sure?
Support 38%
Oppose 51%
Not Sure 11%

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Wisconsin is the one state that has gotten more conservative over the years. I wonder why Feingold has gotten elected so much over the years. Bush just barely lost in 04, yet Feingold won by 10. I don't quite get it.

Wall has no experience, and is just a ceo of Osh Kosh. My guess about Wisconsin, is it used to be a big union and labor state, but as the Unions disintigrated, and corporate rule became the norm, I presume too many people are buying into the "trickled down" lies of corporatism. You can't say Feingold doesn't take stands. He is no Diane Feinstein, let me tell you. He opposed Iraq from the beginning and doesn't think that financial reform in it's current state goes far enough.

____________________

jack:

Paleo said: "Feingold never wins big. He hasn't topped 55%.

That's false. In fact, Feingold beat his Republican opponent by 12% (56-44%) in 2004.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I do think the Dems value Feingold who is to the senate what a Hall of Fame franchise Quarterback like Peyton Manning or Tom Brady are to a football team.

I think a senator who has high popularity in his state among many will prevail in the end.

____________________

Paleo:

"That's false. In fact, Feingold beat his Republican opponent by 12% (56-44%) in 2004."

Well, according to wikipedia, it was 55%. But I'll leave you to quibble over the difference.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Feingold

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I would say that next to PA and Iowa, that Wisconsin may be the third reddest of the blue states.

____________________

melvin:

I wonder if Senator Feingold is going to get help from the Whitehouse,because its no secret Senator Feingold is against this finacial bill, because he says it donot go far enough,also its no secret the man wants to challenge Obama in 2012.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Feingold is the DeMint of the Democrats. Well, maybe Sanders is the closest thing to DeMint but Feingold isn't far behind.

I do think he will probably win in the end. You can see on the crosstabs the likely voter model PPP is using. Obama won the state by 14 but the respondents to this poll only go to him by 1. Obviously, some of that move is people who supported him that no longer do.

____________________

Xenobion:

Who equates approval with popular vote percentage? Foolish foolish interpreters of statistical knowledge... that's who.

____________________

SC Guy:

The other day someone was upset that Rasmussen showed a similar result and I pointed out that Feingold has never really had a firm grip on the Wisconsin electorate. He's known for taking unapologetically liberal positions like taking a high profile approach in opposing the death penalty (in spite of the fact that Wisconsin voters approved an 'advisory' referendum in 2006 in which nearly 56% wanted to reinstate capital punishment there). Feingold is much better suited to Massachusetts or Vermont rather than Wisconsin. I think he might get offed this year.

____________________

Paleo:

It's Feingold's willingness to take principled, sometimes unpopular, stands that have made him a three-term senator, and will likely give him a fourth term. In a place like Wisconsin, a significant number of people respect that even if they may not always agree with him.

____________________

hoosier_gary:

"I don't quite get it."

Wisconsin isn't the exception in the midwest - it is closer to the other states. Illinois and Minnesota are the exceptions.

Democrats almost never carry any rural areas any more. Wisconsin is still a fairly rural state.

Remove Milwaukee and Madison from the mix and Feingold would be lucky to be in the 40's. There are also a lot of Chicago workers living in southern Wisconsin.

Take a look at an election map sometime that shows county by county. Everywhere you show heavy democrat support, you will find a big city or a university.

____________________

Jase:

Speaking as a WI resident, I'm pretty sure that Feingold will win, unless this turns out to be an extremely bad year for the Democrats (which it could be, I suppose.)

Madison and Milwaukee are extremely liberal areas - Madison might be the most liberal city in the entire midwest - but there are also plenty of more moderate democrats in Rock County (Janesville, Beloit), the south-east (Kenosha), and other cities like Appleton and Green Bay.

____________________

jack:
Well, according to wikipedia, it was 55%. But I'll leave you to quibble over the difference.

False again. In the Russ Feingold wikipedia entry, it reads that he won with 56% of the vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Feingold

If you go to his opponent's wikipedia entry, again we read that he lost 56% to 44%: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Michels

And I believe that winning by 12% qualifies as "winning big."

____________________

Paleo:

From the wikipedia link I posted:

"Russell D. Feingold 1,632,697 55% "

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Democrats almost never carry any rural areas any more."

Of course not. Rural areas now are largely older and white. What's bad for republicans is that they're not growing and have been hemmorhageing young people for some time. Ask any hs principal in a town smaller than 40,000 or so and not near a major metro area how many of their graduates return to live and work. Minorities and younger people live in and around the cities and this trend is increasing. This is a reason they lean democratic.

http://news.rutgers.edu/focus/issue.2009-11-30.2679602756/article.2009-12-18.2070912617

____________________

Field Marshal:

What's funny is Nate Silver blasted Rasmussen about a month ago for releasing a poll with the EXACT same results. What a hack he is.

____________________

melvin:

By 2020 Wisconsin will probaly be a lean Red State along with lowa,but States like Nevada in FL in Texas in possibly NC in ARZ are going to be lean Blue,ill take that trade anytime.

____________________

melvin:

Here is the Census projection for the year of 2024.Texas is going to be 55% minority,NC is going to be 50% minority,ARZ is going to be 55% minority,FL is going to be 60% minority,NEV is going to be 55% minority, now how is the Gop going to win if they cant get minority voters?

____________________

Huda:

Melvin and FarLeft, what stats are you building this premise that WI is red leaning or conservative? Sure, its not NY or CT, but its more liberal than Oregon and dare I say Minnesota.

Check Nate Silver, he crunch all the available data so far, it looks good for Dems so far, but things could easily change for better or worse.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

WI was one of the states where youth turnout was huge - 22% of the electorate and went 64-35 for Obama.

What happened in WI in 2008 was that there was a surge of young voters and no surge of evangelicals like there was in 2004. They were the one reason WI was close that year - highly religious voters in that state dropped in their share of the electorate 5-10%.

The white population in WI is significantly more democratic than whites nationwide - even 65+ was split 50/50 there. Republicans will have a difficult time making headway there as long as democrats have any sort of turnout operation.

____________________

jack:

55.6% was the exact Feingold vote. That's 56% rounded. If the other guy got 44% it's obvious that Feingold got 56%.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

"Huda:
Melvin and FarLeft, what stats are you building this premise that WI is red leaning or conservative? Sure, its not NY or CT, but its more liberal than Oregon and dare I say Minnesota.

Check Nate Silver, he crunch all the available data so far, it looks good for Dems so far, but things could easily change for better or worse"

WI sounds like a tough state to figure out. I hope you are right that it isn't turning red, and if that is the case Feingold should win this one.

I would disagree on Oregon and MN; St paul has their first Islamic US Rep, and the Twin cities seem quite progressive. A suburb of Portland Oregon has the first transvestite mayor, and Oregon has also had a law that has allowed assisted suicides for quite some time.

The Midwest obviously is going to be more culturally and socially conservative than New England, NY and the West coast. WI has Madison and Milwaukee, but much of the rest of the state is much like other parts of the Midwest.

I just remember Dukakis won it in 1988 fairly easily, but lost CT, VT, and Maine; Dukakis was not a strong candidate.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

To summarize what some of you said that Democrats cannot win midterms or presidential elections if they lose white voters. They have to have a strong base in states like NH, Iowa and WI just like the GOP will not win elections if they can't reach out to non-whites, mainly Latinos. Besides, even if Texas or Arizona have a growing latino loyal Democratic voter base, and may go Democratic in presidential elections by 2024, the anger won't go away. It won't go away until people can sit down and work out their differences.

A nation that is subdivided like we are is only going to make this country harder to govern.

Democrats need to keep the Blue Dog rural KY and TN white Democrats and the GOP needs to keep their Conservative cuban base. If the two parties become further and further apart, I am afraid our nation will become even more ungovernable than it is already.

____________________

Huda:

FLAP: "I would disagree on Oregon and MN; St paul has their first Islamic US Rep, and the Twin cities seem quite progressive. A suburb of Portland Oregon has the first transvestite mayor, and Oregon has also had a law that has allowed assisted suicides for quite some time."

Yes Oregan and MN are more 'progressive' on certain issues that even a state like Iowa have shown, but that doesn't translate to being liberal as a whole. I don't know, but I always thought Wisconsin like Iowa predominately White and upper-middle income, yet have trended more liberal in their believes and voting pattern since 2004. Again, it depends on the leadership than the political ID. Obama had won in places no one expected because he was either liked or believed beyond his skin color despite all the right wing propaganda attempt to turn him into the boogyman terrorist. Even early on during the heated primaries with Hillary Clinton, Obama won big in Wisconsin, one of the surprises that showed him viable national candidate.

FYI: Ellison, Keith for Congress (MN - 5),was a Farmer-Labor candidate for US Representative from Minnesota's 5th Congressional District supported by mostly non-Muslims and small Muslims population in the area. He's an American with deep roots even longer than most and had track record in his district. So, yes he's Muslim, but not a foreigner. America in most States has progressed thankfully were they tend to support people regardless of race and religion.

____________________

Country Club Repub:

If you have to count on immigrant populations stemming from ILLEGALS to help your party to stay in power then I pity you. And if you have to count on the youth vote to put you over the top then that is equally pathetic. Let these callow youths live in the real world for 5 yrs before they vote and I guarantee they vote GOP.

And besides the Hispanic population is just using the dems to obtain unwarranted rights and services. Once they gain political power they will shift rightward (as they are social, pro lifers) and we will then remain a center right nation, sadly with fewer whites.

____________________

Mark in LA:

Jack,
Do you have any idea how ridiculous it is to argue that Paleo's statement was "false" because he rounded 55.6% down to an even 55%?
Can't you find something more worthwhile to do with your time than this silly nitpicking?

____________________

Farleftandproud:

The Dems should win in MN for Governor and in CA too. This is going to be a crappy year for Dems, especially for governors. Pawlenty and Schwartzneggar have not had good approval numbers, so with good organization the Dems can win.

It is mainly because many of them have served two terms and are retiring. Many states have term limits.-

____________________

Mark in LA:

"the Hispanic population is just using the dems to obtain unwarranted rights and services."

"sadly with fewer whites."

Would any of the resident conservatives like to comment on Country Club's stereotyping of Hispanics and his concerns about racial dilution?

____________________

HookedOnPolls:

RealClearPolitics' brief analysis article about this poll says Feingold's IN TROUBLE

http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/06/29/its-on-in-wisconsin/

____________________

Gtfan4ever:

Wisconsin senate is a race to watch. With the primary set for September that could provide Johnson with the extra boost to stay ahead for good.

____________________

Gtfan4ever:

Wisconsin senate is a race to watch. With the primary set for September that could provide Johnson with the extra boost to stay ahead for good.

____________________

ArthurIBrown:

None of the leftists scoffing at this poll??

Oh....right....it's not a Rasmussen poll. It's from a Democratic firm.

That's gotta hurt.

____________________

Bigmike:

The WI Senate race is obviously too close to call at this point in time.

Ras had BO at -2 for job approval a week ago. This one has him at -5. Looking at the chart on this site for his job approval in WI the consensus is that he is in negative territory. BO will have to carry WI in 2012 to have a chance. I would think if he loses WI he is losing a lot of other traditional blue states too. And you know most of the traditional red states that he carried in 08 are going to be much tougher for him next time.

Slowly but surely he is being unmasked. People are seeing him for the far left wingnut he is.

____________________

seg:

Mark in LA:
Have you become a Jindal fan?
PPP had him at 74% in La.

____________________

Gatecrasher:

Ron Johnson will win this race in the end. As a current resident of the great state of Wisconsin, I can tell everyone that there is a clear anti-Feingold sentiment everywhere you go. People realize he's been in Washington long enough, and hasn't delivered anything for the state. Plus, Republicans have come up with a very credible mainstream candidate for a change.

____________________

seg:

Demographic doom for Republicans:

I have said some of these before but often don't have time to check for replies. In any case, I will list a major point and some counter scenarios:

Major point: over time both R and D will shift because of the demographic changes. Both will find a formula that puts them close to 50%. If either gets well over 50%, they will either splinter or the other will move in their direction. White liberals may be distressed at how the D's change.

Counter-scenarios in order of decreasing probability:

(1) It becomes white versus others, and nearly all whites become Republicans. Look around the world and see what happens when populations are divided into large groups. It is a very sad prospect, and I list this only because it is a reality we must consider. This outcome is almost a certainty if today's affirmative action policies are not outlawed by the Supreme Court before it is politically impossible to end them.

(2) Mexican/CA immigrants become "honorary whites." Asian American/White intermarriage rates will have long since made Asians "white," despite male Asian anger that female Asians frequently marry white males.

(3) "Hispanics" (what a ridiculous term) and blacks take over dem party, drive out all but ageing liberal whites because of insistence of nominating their own instead of white liberals. This is already happening in the South, I think. Whoops! This is just part of the evolution of number 1.

(4) Clashes between blacks and Hispanics fractures demo party. Very light skinned mixed race "blacks" reach critical mass, start thinking of themselves as not black, as is true in South Africa.

(5) Everyone becomes color blind and all racial gaps wither away.

I hope for 5, but am pessimistic, partly from reading too much about the rest of the world and partly from listening too much to people from other countries.

____________________

Mark in LA:

Seg,
In my case, LA stands for "Lower Alabama", not Louisiana. Even though I do spend a fair bit of time fishing, shrimping, and hunting in the Pelican State.
Jindal is a fireball, and not that bad for being a Southern Republican Governor.
That being said, he'll do whatever big oil wants him to do.
Democrat or Republican, to get elected in Louisiana they are required to sell their soul to big oil.
Mark

____________________

hoosier_gary:

"In my case, LA stands for "Lower Alabama", not Louisiana. "

I thought it stood for Los Angeles.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

@Seg

I doubt those scenarios will take place. If you want to see what future dem candidates might look like, you might check this guy out:

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/julian-castro/sa-mayor-julian-castro-visits-stephen-colbert/

Mayor of 7th largest city in the U.S. at age 35, and now kind of a dem celebrity because he came out against the Arizona law. He's hispanic, but doesn't even speak spanish well. So hispanic.....but not quite. Kind of like Obama - black...but not quite. I think he came out against the AZ law purely for national attention. He got a profile in the NYT magazine last month.

"It becomes white versus others, and nearly all whites become Republicans."

This is unlikely. As I've said many times before, since 1988 dems have gotten 40-43% of the white vote very consistently. Republicans have trouble getting over 60% - haven't done it since Reagan. The death of older whites replaced by younger, more liberal whites will keep it in the 37-44% range.

The problem is state-by-state variation. States like CT, MN, MA, VT, ME, WI do not vote democratic because of minority populations -they are all very white. There is a "white" vs. "minority" feel in some southern and upper south states, but then they've always been that way. When blacks were republicans, whites voted democrat. Now it's vice versa.

"Clashes between blacks and Hispanics fractures demo party."

I don't think you will see much black vs. hispanic conflict. They have seperate communities but seem to be pretty good at working together. A lot of people thought hispanics would never vote for Obama and that didn't happen. The days of their conflict are long over. It was notorious back in the pre-civil rights era, but that was when the white power structure (I'm talking about TX here) basically gave minorities "one seat at the table," and blacks and hispanics had to compete for it. The black unions usually won and hispanics resented that but that animosity is long over, partly because there are no more unions.

"Asian American/White intermarriage"

Yes, the "Calfornia girls" are becoming more and more Asian. Multi-ethnic people tend to vote democrat.

"insistence of nominating their own instead of white liberals."

Minority...but not quite. I think it's clear white liberals will vote for a minority person as long as they don't act like Jesse Jackson.

"Everyone becomes color blind and all racial gaps wither away."

I already see this among my students (don't you?). The color means nothing, but class/culture differences still remain. You can be black, but dress, talk, and act white and you're fully accepted into the white preppy clique that hangs out at Starbucks on Friday night.

____________________

seg:

Aaron_in_TX:
I guess I have been talking to too many people from Lebanon. They thought their differences were unimportant among the educated until those differences made long time friends and neighbors into bitter enemies in a matter of weeks.

The Tutsis in Rowanda reported the same thing. I suspect the Uzbeks more recently were shocked at developments. Shiites are treated as abject inferiors in Sunni countries, or so my Shiite students say.

Of course, Americans are morally superior to all those folks, so nothing similar could happen here. Right?

Again, if you look at other countries, demographic equality typically leads to separatism (Tamils, Walloons, French Candadians, etc.). Minorities are "colorful" and non-threatening when their numbers are small or their political power is weak.

____________________

seg:

Aaron_in_TX:
This is so unsatisfactory. When you talk in person, the feedback let's you develop the discussion much faster and in a much clearer way. Having to write it takes far too much time to do clearly and coherently (at least for me), so I usually feel that I have presented a caricature of what I want to say.

That is especially true on issues as difficult and complicated as this one.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Once 2010 is over, I predict the Democrats fortunes will rise. If the way they are being this time round with obstruction over reform that this time most Americans want, people will be sick of it. If Dems do lose a lot of seats, it will wake up the people who got frustrated this year because Obama wasn't doing enough. They will realize by 2012, this is America and there just isn't going to be real change in a country where there are so many laws such as the fillibuster which I wish the GOP had disolved. A lot of Independents who were duped will realize that Obama has their interests at heart and will re-elect him. Had they gotten rid of the fillibuster in 2005, the GOP could have passed legislation that would have been so unpopular that losses in 2008 would be much greater.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Of course, Americans are morally superior to all those folks, so nothing similar could happen here."

Pining for a good ol' fashioned race riot? lol

I guess we had the Rodney King riots back in 92.

But in all seriousness, I don't think you can compare American race issues to those other counties. In the conflicts you mention, it's more clannish or based on much older ethnic animosities. Ie: many french canadians have wanted to be independent since the Seven Years War. Our minorities don't want to create their own country in the U.S. They're not seperatist.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Again, the biggest differences I see have to do with the cultural & class indicators. Color of skin is more or less irrelevant, although still a factor to some.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I don't believe Feingold will lose this race. Trust me, if it is this close by Oct, I am going to book a flight out to WI and help campaign for him myself. That is how much I like the guy.

I think Murray has a better chance of losing in WA than Feingold has because Rossi is better known and has already come within a stones throw of winning in really bad Republican years.

Feingold has charisma and can get younger voters fired up. I am not sure if Murray has that ability.

____________________

RussTC3:

Yet another horrifically poor poll from PPP.

The sample they used 48/47 for President Obama in the 2008 election. For a state that voted +13 for Obama (56/43) this is a mighty impressive Republican-favoring likely voter screen.

Adjusting this poll using the 2008 vote, the numbers become a bit more reasonable. One example, the Feingold/Johnson race:

If the candidates for Senate this fall were Democrat Russ Feingold and Republican Ron
Johnson, who would you vote for?
(PPP "results" in parenthesis)
Russ Feingold 48 (45)
Ron Johnson 39 (43)
Undecided 12 (12)

Same thing applies to President Obama and everything else included in this survey.

Should I be all that surprised that when adjusting for their reported MoE of 3.9% you get almost the identical result (49/39) to what I found when adjusting to the 2008 numbers?

____________________

CHRIS MERKEY:

Nate was right though. He stated that most of the people in WI probably don't who he is. This shows that only 38% of voters in WI even know who he is. Rasmussen had a much higher percentage than PPP did. I guess Ras called more political savvy people. Granted, People can still vote against the other person even though they don't know who the other person is. However, this can work in reverse when they get to know the unknown candidate, (Angle, Paul, Toomey) Reid's chances are better now than they have been in the last two years. It is still pretty suspicious that both polls show a big difference in favorability ratings on the Republican candidates.

____________________

melvin:

THE REPUBLICANS ARE PRAYING FOR A BAD JOBS REPORT ON FRIDAY,BECAUSE THATS THE ONLY WAY THEY STAYS IN THE BALL GAME.

____________________

docboss:

I was born in Wisconsin and raised there. I'm not too worried about Feingold losing. Actually Farleft and others have it wrong. Wisconsin has been trending more blue since 2000. A Democratic governor for 8 years, a Democratic State House and Senate, two Democratic senators, a loss for Republican John Gard in the House, and five of 8 Congressional representatives are Democrats. Democrats can win rural Wisconsin in a wave year. Obama won most of the counties of the state in 2008 and Dave Obey has represented Northwest Wisconsin for over 30 years. They lean Repubican, but its not Alabama by any stretch. As for the health care bill, most people dont even know whats in it...its basically a copy of the counterpropsal Republicans offered to Clinton in 1993, yet 17 years later it becomes "socialist" and a "government takeover." Pretty hilarious flip-flopping from the Republicans.

The state has a long reputation for being liberal...the birthplace of progressive era worker reform, a state that has the highest rating in the country for being against capital punishment, the state whose senator pioneered Earth Day, and the state that was the first to penalize discrmination against gays and lesbians in the workplace. Madison is very liberal...the city of Milwaukee is Democratic, while the rest of the state leans a bit red or is a tossup (Brown County and the Green Bay area). Certainly not a state that is as divided as Iowa or Illinois, where a Democrat couldnt win in certain areas. The only real Red areas are certain suburbs of Milwaukee. I predicted a win for the Republicans in the governors race simply because Dems have won everything in the state for the last 8 years, and Wisconsin isnt a state that likes one party rule, even if it leans blue.

____________________

seg:

RussTC3:
Am I misunderstanding you, or are you saying that the poll should show the same splits as 2008?

If so, it seems a stretch to think that demos will have the same experience in a bad year (this one) as they had in a nearly historically good year.

Or, are you saying that the respondents reported voting for Obama less than the actual vote in 2008? If so, I believe it is pretty commonplace for people to report their own votes incorrectly after an election. For example, in Jan 2009, polled voters reported voting for Obama far more than they actually did. Now that Obama is remarkably less popular, their mutable memory swings the other way.

This may not be dishonestly. Many people are on the cusp in the booth and could have gone either way. Their very indecision makes memory more porous.

Or have I missed your point altogether?

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Their very indecision makes memory more porous."

I think it's pretty stupid if you don't remember who you voted for. It's A or B...not that hard. Did you vote for the skinny black guy or the old white guy?

Russ is assuming the voter composition will be similar to 2008. I would caution against this because a lot of conservatives were "re-weighing" the polls in 2008 to reflect 2004 composition and they were very disappointed.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

When it comes to making calls in swing states in the last election, I made quite a few. I find myself calling a lot of urban places like Cleveland, Philly, Pittsburgh and Columbus in the last election as being the most worthwhile phone calls. They aren't all Democratic obviously, but that is where many of them lean, and I felt as though there were some voters that wouldn't vote if I didn't make that phone call.

2010 there will probably be just a fraction of the excitement and hope there was in 08, but I am not giving up. I guess since the the senate and congress took those jackasses word for it, and succesfully aborted ACORN without a full investigation, that I guess people like me have to work extra hard to organize and replace ACORN. Don't worry, the vision of ACORN will not die and we will organize into something bigger and better.

____________________



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