Check Out Our Poll

1. C’mon guys…I mean, really…a poll originating from the Weekly two days after endorsing Senator Giffords with a “C’mon, trust us” story?
   Did you all decide which voters to include in the poll?

   I mean, where did you find 16% of Democrats that would vote Republican in the election? Could there be a more glaring contrast between, say Patty “creationism is religion/let’s treat immigrants like humans” Weiss and Randy “let’s teach creation in schools/and let them die in the desert” Graf?
   What democrat in his right mind would make that switch?

2. Becky: I don’t think you realize how silly and offensive what you’re saying is. First, we hired Margaret Kenski, who’s recognized as one of the preeminent poll-takers in the state, to do this. Second, accusing us of rigging a poll is accusing us of a serious breach of journalistic ethics; we don’t play that way.

3. Sorry, Jimmy…I wasn’t suggesting you rigged the poll…just that it wasn’t clear who decided which voters to poll, and, moreso that following a huge front-page story with a poll might have voters thinking a certain way.

   I definitely didn’t mean to suggest you guys are in the wrong (at all) just that anyone that had seen the Weekly the day of the poll would undoubtedly have certain candidates in mind…I do think that having a candidate on the front page of a paper EVERYONE in Tucson sees definitely can have an effect on voter responses (when the poll follows the release of the paper), woudn’t you agree?

   But, I’m serious about Democrats jumping ship…I can’t believe that any Southern AZ Democrat would vote for one of the Repubs in this particular election (especially when there is even a hard-line immigration Democrat.)

4. Wow! I’m surprised by the results. I thought Patty Weiss would come in stronger in the primary against Giffords. And why hasn’t Huffman gotten his name out there more? Huffman’s got Jim Click and Jim Kolbe supporting him for Christ’s sake!

   If we end up with a Giffords/Graf race, I’ll feel like I’m voting in a Kerry/Bush election.

5. Your last statement is interesting Tim. Just who would you vote for then? I am still surprised at the anger that some of the Weiss supporters have against Giffords. It has been a strong campaign, she was an excellent young legislator and she has much more experience that either Weiss or Latas. As to whether she is liberal enough for some supporting Weiss, look really closely and see what some of us see. Not only does she have broad support, but she has a strong record as a Democrat. I also believe in shaking the tree sometimes, but that doesn’t mean you need to pull off all the apples when you do it.

6. After last nights debate – it becomes ever more clear that Patty Weiss runs circles around her nearest competitor, Gabrielle Giffords. Too, Francine Schacter is “hot” stuff! We would like to know much more about her – although, realistically she doesn’t have a chance – she is right on the money! It would be very interesting to see your poll, if it were done today – and, not a few days after you endorse a candidate – not too cool.

7. Becky,
   I feel there are two things that paint the picture wrong with your statements.
   First, while the poll shows that 16 percent of Democrats would switch, the poll also showed that 21 percent of Republicans would switch the other way. This indicates there is a healthy bunch of Tucsonans willing to switch both ways, and therefore it seems like people switching parties when asked a hypothetical question like this that the 16% is not an aberration only relating to Democrats for CD8 2006.
   In simpler words, it’s not like just Democrats said they’d switch over, despite your outcry or disbelief that the poll found a bunch of Democrats who would.

   Second, I wouldn’t call Randy Graf a standard or representative Republican. Naming him as a representative example for the Republican Party and then suggesting the Weekly went and deliberately found a survey sample of Democrats who, among 16% of them, would consider voting “Randy Graf” is pretty incorrect. The polling sample saying they would consider voting “Republican” doesn’t mean they would vote “Randy Graf,” just Republican.
   And, it seems that it was a binary choice: akin to “yes or no, if your preferred candidate lost, would you consider switching to the other side of the duopoly?”
   It is a very straightforward method to ask the question, but it doesn’t take into account people who might switch to a candidate in another party entirely, such as the Libertarian Party.

   As an aside (and I shouldn’t be divulging this much of an political opinion, honestly), I almost would suggest that a large part of the 21 percent of Republicans who would hypothetically switch are members of the moderate base in Arizona who value political policies that are more up their alley, versus being loyal to their registered party.
   Remember, the question was something similar to, “if your preferred candidate lost in the primary, would you switch parties for the election?” I still believe Randy Graf is not a full representative of the Republican Party as it exists in Arizona, and if he won, he may alienate some Republican voters compared to his more moderate opponents he’s facing in the primary.

   Getting back to the point, I know plenty of people in today’s world who don’t subscribe to the idea of straight-ticket voting. With that in mind, I thought the idea that a rough combined average of 19% of the full polling sample would consider switching to the other party was a pretty fair number.

   Regards,
   MW

8. I am wondering, how the Tucson Weekly can seriously portray itself as an alternative newspaper while endorsing the candidate who has raised more money in a primary that any other candidate in the history of District congressional politics. This is a candidate who covets the “moderate” label accorded only to Democrats from very wealth families. A candidate who charges hard at relatively immeasurable problems like “waste in the budget” and “corporate welfare”, but takes no position on the more measurable problems like what has been done to the estate tax over the past five years. After all, that might stand in the way of a windfall for all of her boomer friends who also stand to inherit seven figures of money real soon.

   Also, never mind that this is a candidate who, despite having knowledge and a degree in regional planning, has done absolutely nothing in six years in the state legislature to even begin to fix a system of state laws that condemn the working class to living in an environment of unbridled retail sprawl. Of course if she had done something on this issue it might have cost her the support of the real estate lobby which, after all, has accounted for about $100,000 of the money she has raised so far in this campaign.

   Just my opinion, but you are living in a not so beautifully decorated box.

9. Edit my previous comment to specify “District 8” in place of District

10. Ann: Thanks for the comments. Two questions for you. One: How, exactly, is Gabrielle Giffords so conservative, based on her voting record? Second: You say she did nothing in the Legislature. Please name some Democratic legislators who have been able to “even begin to fix a system of state laws that condemn the working class to living in an environment of unbridled retail sprawl,” in your words, while dealing with a Republican majority.

11. Jimmy: I wouldn’t say Giffords is conservative. Anyway, I am beginning to believe that labels serve only to advance propaganda and hinder true dialogue. However, Giffords has worked hard to cultivate the “moderate” label, conferred these days only upon a candidate who leaves untouched the sacred cows of the rich and powerful, the “estate tax” and especially in the West, the moral right to create and profit from retail sprawl. My observation is that Giffords did not deal at all – at all – with issues that might irritate the most powerful lobby in Arizona.

    Perhaps it is unrealistic, but I believe Giffords’s education in land use planning could have uniquely qualified her to develop a dialogue in the Legislature to promote legislation to redirect the focus of development away from “malls on every thoroughfare.” Giffords did nothing in an area in which there is a desperate need and in which she had unique advanced education.

    Perhaps I should accept that these are not high profile concerns for a “moderate” liberal? First though I would like to suggest that no other locally visible injustice contributes so much to so many other destructive movements. Some examples include the many ways retail sprawl contributes to global warming, such as, the additional heat generated by the acres of new single level parking; the time wasted at the new traffic signals created with each new retail center; the additional time it takes each and every poor working stiff to get anywhere; the interference with any possible future roads designed for smaller lighter vehicles and bicycles; and perhaps most unfortunately, the growing alienation that results when the places and resources that might otherwise be dedicated to the town square instead are used to make certain that each of us spend a moment sitting at another half an acre of intersection, staring into the cars stopped all around us, wondering how many times in the past we have been stopped next to the same people without ever being able to use the occasion to share a greeting, much less a political discourse.

    Forgive me for these protests. Back to the subject.

    I appreciate the draw and appeal of the red and blue controversy, and I suppose Giffords seems well prepared for this battlefield. But the things that bring blight to the lives of the common and the simple are things erected to divide and alienate. The promoted controversies and the wealthy politicians who have all the solutions and who make all the right moves are not pathways to a better place.

12. Ann: Good points. Thanks for the clarification.

Comments are closed.