Thanks for Commenting
Sanderoff doesn't do work for democrats. He works for the journal. I'd like to see you cite one instance in the last 10 years where Sanderoff polled for a candidate/campaign -- you can't. Also, tell me how many times sanderoff's polls have not predicted the winner. The answer is, twice. Not a bad record.
Public Opinion Strategies does work exclusively for Republicans and is political polling firm. In fact they are known for their cheap, horserace polls that candidates can turn around quickly and show what they want them to show (which is what heather is doing).
Big difference.
It's just incredible watching you try to spin these things. Go back to political elementary school, Burgos.
Thanks for doing the research on this republican polling outfit, Maria.
But as the only republican blogger in this area, it's Mr. Burgos job to help out his party, they need all the help they can get.
Maria, interesting that you ask me to "cite one instance in the last 10 years where Sanderoff polled for a candidate/campaign." You're right, I can't because Mr. Sanderoff stopped doing it 10 years ago. I thought I made it clear in my post that Mr. Sanderoff no longer polls for candidates. I also tried to make it clear that I have nothing against Brian. But he has been wrong twice before, and there is a very good chance this 1st Congressional race is going to complete the hat trick.
JD, thanks for giving me the title of "the only republican blogger in this area." It's very flattering, but I'm afraid I can't accept that honor as there are quite a few others.
You may recall when Gary Johnson was running for his second term. His tracking polls had him consistently between 59-61 percent voting for him from July up till the election.
One week before the election the journal ran a poll showing Gary at 52, Marty at 49. Within Stiking distance. How he got those numbers nobody had a clue.
At 7:00 pm, the election was called for Gary and he won..59-41 I think. But it was consistant with his tracking polls.
So here was one time that Sanderoff was wrong and really wrong. Why? You have to ask him.
I would have voted for Wilson even if the Democrats had run someone competent and squeaky-clean. (I *could* vote for a Democrat for local office or if the Repulican canditate was horrible... in theory.) Maybe I'm not able to evaluate how "swing" voters will respond to the political ads I see on television, but to *me* Madrid's ads seem weak. Every one. For instance... "I'm Patricia Madrid and I'll stand up to George Bush when I think he's wrong..." and I think... when does a junior congresswoman get face time with the president? And I also think, how do they know what Heather Wilson has said or not said to George Bush about the situation in Iraq? Do they *know* she hasn't said anything? As for votes... from what I understand the majorities got in congress on war related votes are quite comfortable. And the DNC pays for an ad with Heather saying "stay the course" over and over and I think, is that really a *bad* thing (it may actually motivate people to vote *for* Heather Wilson) and does it give the impression that they had too few video clips that they could use that they had to do the same clip on repeat? Does it, like the others, actually illustrate how very little even politically motivated people can find to criticize her for?
I realize that the strategy is to associate Heather with Bush but it's almost like Wilson is running against Bush and not Heather.
(I think this explains at least some of Madrid's dismal public speaking performance, I think she's been told to tie it to Bush no matter what, and that get's convoluted and confusing and has her tripping over her tongue.)
I've said it before, but I'm tempted to get a "Bush '08" bumper sticker. And if I did, I know for a fact that a whole lot of people wouldn't get the joke.
Madrid running against Bush and not Heather... argh.
Commenting by HaloScan
