Janet & Matt (vanity - sort of...)

me | 10/22/02 | Frumious Bandersnatch

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Matt Salmon won his primary with 130,000+ votes while Janet Napolitano won hers with 90,000+ votes.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Matt Salmon won his primary with 130,000+ votes while Janet Napolitano won hers with 90,000+ votes. Before the primary, Janet was running ahead of Matt in the polls. After the primary, Janet was still running ahead in the polls. I just noticed today that Janet was running at 48% while Matt was running at 32% in the polls.

The total primary votes cast for Republican candidates was significantly greater than the total cast for Democratic candidates.  Neither candidate has made any significant miscues.  Matt's base vote is around 40,000 > Janet's.

Given that, how can the polls show that Janet is leading by double-digits?

I can think of several possibilities:
1). These are push polls
2). There is a significant rejection rate (60% or higher)
3). These are not polls for likely voters
4). Tucson, Phoenix and Tempe are given inordinate weight
5). The demographics of the east valley are totally ignored.

I don't see that the double-digit advantage that pollsters say Janet has over Matt is even beginning to be realistic.  In any event, it would appear to me that Matt has a significant advantage based on his primary win alone.

What, if anything, have I missed?

[hsmomx3]

The newspapers are pushing democrats quite heavily. Much more than I have ever seen them push for a candidate. I keep saying that it will be the Mormons and homeschoolers who will push Matt over the top. There is no way that people want a pro-abortion, supporter of same sex unions/benefits, and a Janet Reno clone. Oh, the thought............yuck!!

Also, I have heard that subscriptions to the paper are way down.

[LibTeeth]

With all the Indian-gaming initiatives on the ballot, the normally insignbifican turnout of register voters in the indian tribes will likely create larger turnout in that segment. They tend to vote democrat. But I doubt that segment shows up much in polling.

[Norman Conquest]

Many people are registered R and vote in the R primaries, but are actually Ds at heart and vote D in November?

Many Rs who voted for Matt's opponents in the primary really really dislike Matt and won't give their vote to the guy who beat their guy? (Was it a contentious primary?)

On the flip side, Janet is getting full support from her vanquished opponents and their supporters?

Maybe what doesn't seem like a misstep to you smells to high heaven with a significant block of R voters?

[Crusader Rabbit]

I believe that you are mostly on target. It also bears notice that the total votes cast in the Republican primary exceed those cast in the 'Rat primary by a similar margin. These purposely fallaciously constructed polls are classic Clintonian propaganda. Their purpose is to discourage Republican voters from bothering to vote (it worked here in '96).

What I fear even more is that the "Clean Elections" board plans to create a scandal from nothing at the last moments of the campaign. They have already indicated that they mean to assert that the Salmon campaign's use of cash accounting, rather than cost accounting, is a violation of the law. They will do this despite the fact that the law does not specify and despite their never having issued policy on the subject. CEMA!

[hsmomx3]

I just heard on KFYI that this clean elections (?) people are after Matt again. I bet Janet is licking her chops over this.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Also, I have heard that subscriptions to the paper are way down.

Well, what do you expect when the paper specifically goes out of their way to hire a chief editor who is homosexual and very liberal to boot?  This was a deliberate slap in the face to mostly conservative AZ.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Yeah, those so-called "clean election" laws are the pits.  Matt made the decision to use no public funds for his campaign, and he is getting all sorts of grief.  Janet, OTOH, loves the public teat and is getting a free ride.  In fact, Janet loved Bush's campaign raising here, because it meant more money in her coffers too.

The person who really puzzles me in all of this is Arpaio.  He has apparently come down in support of Janet.  Also, he seems to be wasting a lot of political capital by not keeping his yap shut (one reason I'm voting against his jails tax).

However, Matt's cutting back taxes theme sits far better with most people than Janet's "everything is on the table" theme.

Mahoney is a loose cannon, but he seems to be more damage to Janet (and himself) than Matt.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Many Rs who voted for Matt's opponents in the primary really really dislike Matt and won't give their vote to the guy who beat their guy? (Was it a contentious primary?)

Matt is well liked here in AZ.  He has a well-deserved reputation for integrity (actually keeping his campaign promises for one thing).  The primary campaign wasn't particularly bloody and Matt got twice as many votes as his nearest competitor.  Furthermore, I believe that most (if not all) of his competitors in the primary are now backing him.

I think he is from the east valley.  Phoenix dislikes and Tempe despises the eastern valley generally.  I'm sure I don't know why.  After all, most of the crime in the valley of the sun occurs in Phoenix and Tempe.  This is especially interesting in light of the fact that the biggest growth area is currently in the east valley.

Janet is not all that well liked by her allies.  She took a lot of criticism for some of her policies while Attorney General (for one thing, she feels that ranchers on the border can be sued for trying to defend their land).  Her handling (with kid-gloves) of sex-offenders didn't win her too many friends either.

Personally, I think Matt's biggest problems are the pubbies.  Jane Hull is an absolute disgrace as a governor (and she is a pubbie).