Skip to comments.
Oregon Poll: Smith - 45%, Bradbury - 41%
Grove Quirk Insight Ltd. ^
Posted on 08/22/2002 6:23:40 AM PDT by Coop
Smith - 45%
Bradbury - 41%
Poll taken of 600 likely voters (4% margin of error) between Aug 15-18 2002, conducted by Grove Quirk Insight for Dem Senatorial Committee.
TOPICS: Oregon; Campaign News; Polls
KEYWORDS: 2002; bradbury; oregon; senate; smith
This is a Dem poll, so take it with a grain of salt. Smith is still a bit vulnerable, but this poll's margin is significantly tighter than the last several polls showing Smith up by double digits (but still under 50% in most). Back in early May Smith had about $4 mil in the bank, compared to $700K for his opponent.
posted on 08/22/2002 6:23:40 AM PDT
posted on 08/22/2002 6:29:41 AM PDT
To: frmrda; eureka!; KQQL; BlackRazor
I flagged you guys up above with GSC, yet the names didn't take. A similar thing happened yesterday. Strange.
posted on 08/22/2002 6:41:34 AM PDT
I think Smith wins this one. He's sufficiently RINO to win a place like Oregon, and really got a boost when the Gov decided not to run.
Sad, but the realist in me is taking over for the ideologue. Smith is RINO, but I hope to hell he wins so we can get control of the Senate (mainly so we can at least get VOTES on some issues like judges, ANWR, permanent tax cut repeal, etc). Same with Ganske, Dole, and Coleman - RINO's all.
Still Coop, keep this in the back of your mind. If we net 1 seat and it is 50-49-1 (in essence a tie) watch for that little idiot Lincoln Chafee to follow in scumbag Jefford's steps and become Independent. That's why we at least need to have 51 Republican Senators. Also, if we do get 51 or more, I think old Zell Miller might jump to either a R or Ind. He doesn't want to do it now (coward) because he wants to play both sides against the other.
posted on 08/22/2002 7:05:30 AM PDT
1) Zell Miller is hardly a coward. That's an unfair characterization, to put it lightly. He has stood up against his party's nonsense time and time again, but he's also said he has no intention of leaving the Dem party after xx years (he's in his 70s, I believe).
2) Lincoln Chaffee did make noises about leaving. Let him. But I also posted an article a couple of months ago where he was saying how disgusted he was with the Dems' treatment of Judge Pickering and the other nominees. Perhaps he's seen the light. Who knows?
posted on 08/22/2002 7:23:38 AM PDT
I consider Zell a coward for one reason. He sees what is happening in the Senate as a result of his party's control and it makes him furious. He has expressed his disdain on a number of occasions. Yet, in reality, he is the only one with the possibility of changing it and he's done nothing. I've got a hunch that he didn't switch sides right after Jeffords did in early 01 is because he thought Strom was going to die, which would put the Dems back in the majority b/c the SC gov. is a Dem.
So while Zell says all the right things. To me two quotes are applicable:
"Actions speak louder than words"
"Full of Sound and Fury Signifying Nothing"
posted on 08/22/2002 7:38:36 AM PDT
He's done more than talk. You don't like him because he hasn't switched parties. Fair enough. But I don't blame the guy for not wanting to leave a party he loved all those years. But Zell has made it clear he does not and will not support the Dems' obstructionist activities. And he's backed it up with his votes.
I personally think if we have a Chaffee or McCain situation looming after Nov, Zell will make it clear he'll vote for the Pubbie as Majority Leader. He won't need to change parties for that. Simply a hunch.
posted on 08/22/2002 7:44:07 AM PDT
The reason I dislike him is not because he's still a Dem., that's his choice. Why I dislike him is because he's bitched and moaned about the obstructionist activities, but what's he done to change them. After all he had it in his power to do so and he didn't. If he's not going to do anything about it, his complaints ring hollow to me.
posted on 08/22/2002 8:12:29 AM PDT
He blasted McKinney for her nonsense, he has said he would confirm Pickering if he could (he did confirm Ashcroft), he voted for our tax cut, and those are just off the top of my head.
posted on 08/22/2002 8:16:50 AM PDT
1. Blasting McKinney is easy, and it does nothing to get the Senate moving on things. I'd be much more impressed if he called Daschle "loony", but again, even that would be only words.
2. Voting for Pickering "if he could". Again, great sentiment, but it signifies nothing. He would have gotten his chance to vote for Pickering had there been Republican control, but he chose not to go that route, and all he can do is lament about a vote he never got a chance to make.
3. The tax cut was brought to the floor when the Repubs were in control, right before the Jeffords switch. Do you think that woudl have ever gotten to a vote if Daschle was in control. And hell, even Feinstein voted for the tax cut along with 11 other Dems. The only reason they all got a chance to vote at all was because we were still in control
posted on 08/22/2002 8:27:02 AM PDT
You're probably right about the tax cut. But don't blame Zell for the problem. Lay it right square at Jeffords's feet where it belongs.
Say... have you noticed how quiet it is on this thread? :-) Not too many people seem interested in ol' Gordon's race.
posted on 08/22/2002 9:00:30 AM PDT
"Say... have you noticed how quiet it is on this thread? :-) Not too many people seem interested in ol' Gordon's race."
Probably because any hint of a looming fight to protect one of our own seats is eminently less interesting (or should I say comfortable!) than the idea of picking off a vulnerable Dem seat!
An incumbant under 50%? you got any other polls.
posted on 08/22/2002 11:18:37 AM PDT
by CPT Clay
But Zell has made it clear he does not and will not support the Dems' obstructionist activities. And he's backed it up with his votes.
His support for obstructionist Daschle as senate leader is more important thant any other vote he makes. Its like all those people who say they're pro-life but then go vote for the Dems in every election.
Let's be fair to Sen. Smith--he is no RINO. Ok, he is no Jesse Helms but he is no Jim Jeffords (Before the switch) either.
To: CPT Clay
An incumbant under 50%? you got any other polls.
Yeah, he's always been vulnerable in the polls, but he dodged a bullet when Gov. Kitzhaber decided not to run against him. Five polls since March:
Smith - 45%, Bradbury - 36%, Dem poll
Smith - 57%, Bradbury - 39%, media poll
Smith - 49%, Bradbury - 33%, media poll
Smith - 48%, Bradbury - 36%, unknown
Smith - 45%, Bradbury - 41%, Dem poll
posted on 08/22/2002 1:11:50 PM PDT
Any dates w those polls? Isnt less than 50 bad for incumbant?
posted on 08/22/2002 2:16:02 PM PDT
by CPT Clay
To: CPT Clay
Yeah, I've got details for all of them. I just get tired of typing them in all the time. Send me an E-mail address and I'll be happy to send you my spreadsheet.
Under 55% is generally considered vulnerable territory for an incumbent. (I think to account for margin of error, voter turnout, and some swaying of voters.) Smith was considered very vulnerable until Kitzhaber bowed out. Now his seat is usually listed as "Leans Republican." He's not out of the woods by any stretch, but he does have quite the financial advantage.
posted on 08/22/2002 2:19:02 PM PDT
To: BlackRazor; Coop
I'm lurking, and interested. EVERY Senate Race is important, Senator Smith's included. I would expect that today's high-profile visit of the President (fundraiser, too, I hope) will help the Senator. I take it the State Fair is a big deal in Oregon...not being a smartass, just really don't know.
Does the President enjoy high approval ratings in Oregon? I've always sort or lumped Oregon in the liberal northwest grouping in my mental map of the nation...
I don't mind being educated on the issue if one of you in-state boys or girls can provide enlightenment.
I agree that Zell should bolt the Dems but I hesitate calling him a coward. I really respect the man after a few comments after 9/11 and his address to the NRA meeting.
posted on 08/23/2002 7:44:58 AM PDT
conducted by Grove Quirk Insight for Dem Senatorial Committee.
RAT poll. add 3-4% to smith's tally
posted on 08/24/2002 4:05:51 AM PDT
I already said as much up top. That's why I always look to see who commissioned the poll.
posted on 08/24/2002 8:45:08 AM PDT
To: Coop; KQQL
I've always wondered as to the actual mechanics of how partisan-sponsored polls generate more favorable numbers for their own candidates - especially since they are able to do it with such consistency! Is it due to unintended, but overly optimistic assumptions? Is it due to wording the questions in an intentionally leading way? Is it due to selectively using more favorable demographics when choosing sample type, size, and polling timeframe? Is it due to after-the-fact manipulation of the numbers? All of the above? Something else?
To: BlackRazor; Dales
Dales can probably answer your question better than I can, but in my limited view it seems to be in over/underestimating turnout with favorable or unfavorable demographics. For example, Ron Kirk in TX is tied in polls with Republican Cornyn when the black and Hispanic turnout is estimated to be high. (Probably a fair estimation, given what's at stake and the "Dream Team" coverage.) So Dems will be likely to estimate a high turnout, while Pubbies will be inclined to estimate an average or low turnout.
posted on 08/24/2002 4:10:00 PM PDT
Smith made a MAJOR error, by his stance in support of CEDAW, imo. But then I might be only one of ten Oregonians who even knows that......LOL. I hope.
posted on 08/28/2002 5:26:25 PM PDT
What is CEDAW?
posted on 08/29/2002 4:06:27 AM PDT
Email recvd yesterday from The Liberty Committee:
August 28, 2002
Underhanded politicians and lobbyists in Washington often sneak controversial legislation through Congress when the public is highly focused on other issues, such as Iraq.
These professional politicos are preparing to make their move to have the U.S. Senate quietly pass an extremely controversial treaty: the United Nations "Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
Just before the U.S. Senate adjourned for its August recess, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 12-7 along strict party lines to report CEDAW to the full Senate for a vote. This action was led by committee chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE) and committee member Barbara Boxer (D-CA).
According to the Senate Republican Policy Committee, "CEDAW -- the 'Rip Van Winkle' treaty -- was first submitted to the Senate by President Carter in 1980, but it lay dormant for 14 years. In 1994, President Clinton sought Senate action on CEDAW, yet the treaty was too divisive to reach the Senate floor. In fact, in its 22-year history, the treaty has never come to a full vote. Why? Because this treaty has serious problems."
Problems such as
1. forcing the U.S. to rewrite national and state laws to conform to United Nations social engineering;
2. undermining U.S. sovereignty;
3. turning lose on America a team of 23 U.N. "inspectors" who will use "numerical equivalence" (read quotas) to judge; U.S. compliance with this U.N. edict; and,
4. forcing women into front-line combat.
The socialist, world-government fanatics believe they have waited long enough to get CEDAW passed by the U.S. Senate. They are poised to make their move while the public is focused on Iraq.
We, however, are watching CEDAW very closely and with your help, are preparing to shine a 10,000-candle spotlight on the sneaky pro-CEDAW fringe hiding in the shadows. Don't take action just yet. Be prepared to contact your two U.S. senators very soon -- probably next week. When the time comes, we must act in unison and with very little notice
Story: Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women
Senator Gordon Smith cast one of the deciding votes to move the bill out of committee to the floor for a vote.
posted on 08/29/2002 6:25:20 AM PDT
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson