Michigan Senate GOP Primary Poll by Murray Communications

[tsai3904]

Michigan Senate Republican Primary
May 20, 2013
1,158 likely Republican primary voters
+/-2.88%



Mike Rogers
35.66%


Terri Lynn Land
28.84%


Justin Amash
10.28%


Kurt Dykstra
9.93%


Roger Kahn
5.18%


Pete Lund
4.66%


Rob Steele
2.85%


Saul Anuzis
1.38%


Jim Murray
1.21%



http://www.scribd.com/doc/142771213/2013-05-20-Michigan-Senate-Poll-Press-Release

[Brett85]

Hmmm. Not great news there.

[supermario21]

Wow the Tea partiers between Steele and Amash are getting destroyed. Amash should just focus on his House race...

[EBounding]

I don't get why Lynn Land isn't 1st. Hrmm.

[erowe1]

I think Mike Rogers just has the best name for polls. Not name recognition, just name. All the other names, including Amash's, are kind of weird. And nobody knows who any of these people are anyway.

[Bastiat's The Law]

That's a huge poll.

[Warlord]

Lynn Land probably should run for this and give it a go.

[AJ Antimony]

Looks like a pure name-ID poll. If you look at the results breakdown by CD, Amash soundly wins in his home district, and narrowly wins in neighboring CD-2, Huizenga's district. He has a significant percentage in neighboring CD-6. In other CD's it looks like he barely registers.

If Amash was truly disliked by "the establishment," then you'd think he'd perform worse in his home district. He didn't win it by 60% points like Rogers does in his own, but he still came out with the plurality.

This leads me to believe that if Amash can get his name-ID way up statewide, he has a shot to win a plurality of GOP voters, just like he did in his State House and US House primaries. If the only GOP candidates for US Senate are Amash and Rogers/Land then he's going to have to work very hard to win a majority of GOP voters. At least, that's what some data indicates.

[Warlord]

If I was him i'd just back Land and stay in the House. She's a former twice elected sec. of state. she looks as if she could win the seat. Rogers would flop badly and so would Amash. GOP's best choice is her.

[EBounding]

I'd rather have Land than Rogers. She could be the canary in the mine. If she can't win a Senate seat, it might be best to write Michigan off and concentrate on other seats. At this point, I'd only want Justin to run if he was 99% sure he could avoid a primary battle.

[Warlord]

Land could definitely win this. She could play the outsider vs. DC card and it'll work.

She's also been on the ballot statewide twice in the last decade and won with 55%+ each time.

She is easily their best hope.

Snyder is going to win re-election and she is known and not objectionable enough for voters to cross over to the Democrat so it should be pretty straight forward. I think it'll also be hard for the DNC attack machine to go after her as they dump money in the race.

[FSP-Rebel]

At this point, I'd only want Justin to run if he was 99% sure he could avoid a primary battle.
That's what we're trying to do up here, both on the ground as well as our people and allies on the state committee. As previously mentioned, this poll is name rec and generic naming only. Very few republicans outside of the party goers have a clue who Amash is nor many of the others down the list either. As far as how the election would go, Rogers is the equivalent of the "establishment Hoekstra" last time and Land is alright but as Sec of State she tried putting RFIDs in our driver's licenses, so she's that type. Some of our prominent local comm people have already told Land what's in store should she run, same goes for Rogers. The GOP's only shot at winning is Amash since he can carry heavily Muslim Dearborn who'd otherwise vote democrat. Detroit won't be much of a factor in this race.

[Warlord]

That's what we're trying to do up here, both on the ground as well as our people and allies on the state committee. As previously mentioned, this poll is name rec and generic naming only. Very few republicans outside of the party goers have a clue who Amash is nor many of the others down the list either. As far as how the election would go, Rogers is the equivalent of the "establishment Hoekstra" last time and Land is alright but as Sec of State she tried putting RFIDs in our driver's licenses, so she's that type. Some of our prominent local comm people have already told Land what's in store should she run, same goes for Rogers. The GOP's only shot at winning is Amash since he can carry heavily Muslim Dearborn who'd otherwise vote democrat. Detroit won't be much of a factor in this race.

I think Amash would lose to a generic Democrat sadly. I think Land is the best hope for the GOP even though she's probably horrible she has been on the ballot statewide twice with 55% of the vote and it should be straight forward. Amash is not known enough and the DNC attack machine will destroy him and put enough people off to split their ticket when they re-elect Gov. Snyder.

That's just my assessment of the lay of the land.

Anacedotals are meaningless when your talking about a state and an election with millions of voters going to the polls. You have to understand herd mentality in elections and the ability of the DNC attack machine who will dump millions into this race.

[erowe1]

I think Amash would lose to a generic Democrat sadly. I think Land is the best hope for the GOP even though she's probably horrible she has been on the ballot statewide twice with 55% of the vote and it should be straight forward. Amash is not known enough and the DNC attack machine will destroy him and put enough people off to split their ticket when they re-elect Gov. Snyder.

That's just my assessment of the lay of the land.

She was only on the ballot statewide for Secretary of State. Granted, that gives her more recognition than a state treasurer. But simply being on a ballot statewide doesn't mean much.

Even if Amash runs for Senate and loses, he can still transition into a role that's more important than what he's doing now in the House. And he'll still have plenty of time to run again for something in the future.

You remind me of this other guy who used to be here awhile back saying Amash shouldn't run for Senate.

[Michigan11]

Forget Land she is no good. Justin has mentioned a few times, how if the GOP picks another establishment type in the primary, they will lose.

To be honest here for those not in Michigan, the establishment republicans chosen here since I can remember are just some of the worst types anywhere, they remind me of the John McCains and Lindsey Grahams, without a personality or without any energy vibe around them, to get even a bit excited about for the republican voters.

Basically most republicans here put out front are just so awful, not even close to what the actual voters want, it's a hold your nose type of thing for the repubs.

This poll is useless. To use a beer reference as a guide to these names I will start.

O'doules beer would be "Land"... nobody drinks it, it's a miracle it still exists, and there is no excitement.
Old Millwaukee is "Rogers"... most have their minds made up that have tried it, it's not a good beer, or something to get an ounce of excitement over.

"Amash"... is that great micro brew beer, made in Kalamazoo, that gets people talking about and excited about once they hear of it and try it.

[sailingaway]

Looks like a pure name-ID poll. If you look at the results breakdown by CD, Amash soundly wins in his home district, and narrowly wins in neighboring CD-2, Huizenga's district. He has a significant percentage in neighboring CD-6. In other CD's it looks like he barely registers.

If Amash was truly disliked by "the establishment," then you'd think he'd perform worse in his home district. He didn't win it by 60% points like Rogers does in his own, but he still came out with the plurality.

This leads me to believe that if Amash can get his name-ID way up statewide, he has a shot to win a plurality of GOP voters, just like he did in his State House and US House primaries. If the only GOP candidates for US Senate are Amash and Rogers/Land then he's going to have to work very hard to win a majority of GOP voters. At least, that's what some data indicates.

Well, maybe an early moneybomb to test the waters and get his name up is in order, so we can see poll impact. I want Amash in the Senate but I don't want to lose him in the House if this isn't the best time for a move yet.

What can be done to raise his name ID before the next poll?

We should put effort into this early, imho, so he knows before he has to make decisions about his House seat, what his chances will be.

[Michigan11]

Well, maybe an early moneybomb to test the waters and get his name up is in order, so we can see poll impact. I want Amash in the Senate but I don't want to lose him in the House if this isn't the best time for a move yet.

What can be done to raise his name ID before the next poll?

We should put effort into this early, imho, so he knows before he has to make decisions about his House seat, what his chances will be.

I tell you what I have had a very clear vision of where Michigan as a state is heading. It's changing considerably. Since being back here, it's been clear. A Ron Paul type Republican leading this state is very near.

[sailingaway]

KateNocera ‏@KateNocera now
. @justinamash on No Budget No Pay: "we still have no budget, we have all gotten paid." #cwc
Retweeted by Justin Amash

^^I really like this guy.

[Barrex]

Thomas Massie was in chatroom few days ago. I asked him about Amash. He said that he thinks Amash will no run. He didnt talked to him but that is his personal opinion.

[Warlord]

She was only on the ballot statewide for Secretary of State. Granted, that gives her more recognition than a state treasurer. But simply being on a ballot statewide doesn't mean much.

Even if Amash runs for Senate and loses, he can still transition into a role that's more important than what he's doing now in the House. And he'll still have plenty of time to run again for something in the future.

You remind me of this other guy who used to be here awhile back saying Amash shouldn't run for Senate.

Being on the ballot statewide and winning matters and makes her stronger than some congessman as it made Mourdock. Same play here. All she needs to do is ride Snyder's coat tails. If it was Amash the DNC would destroy him before he could even get going.

[AJ Antimony]

Some of our prominent local comm people have already told Land what's in store should she run, same goes for Rogers.

What do you mean by "what's in store"?


The GOP's only shot at winning is Amash since he can carry heavily Muslim Dearborn who'd otherwise vote democrat. Detroit won't be much of a factor in this race.

You're so sure Dearborn will vote for Amash simply because he's Arab? It might be true, but that sounds like a very extreme assumption to risk a US House career on.

[AJ Antimony]

What can be done to raise his name ID before the next poll?

Not much. He ran for Congress twice and still has poor name-ID statewide. That should tell you something about how hard it is to boost political name-ID.

[sailingaway]

Not much. He ran for Congress twice and still has poor name-ID statewide. That should tell you something about how hard it is to boost political name-ID.


Ron did between campaigns. It can be done.,

And Ron would campaign for him, I bet, in Dearborn. Ron did well there, and I think Amash would do better than other GOP. Not sure v Dems. But Obama's record sucks.

[FSP-Rebel]

What do you mean by "what's in store"?



You're so sure Dearborn will vote for Amash simply because he's Arab? It might be true, but that sounds like a very extreme assumption to risk a US House career on.
First off, what's in store is that non-conservative facts about her or whomever will be standard talking points at local GOP meetings throughout the state thus killing optimism, support, turnout and will affect the governor's reelection bid. Enhancing that bid will be Amash as wingman at top of ticket because only he can keep the base intact plus draw higher turnout against the dems in key areas, one of which is Dearborn. Not only because he is Arab but because his foreign policy stance is so crucial, like Rand's but more so. There's a certain amount of collectivism in minority ethnicities, unfortunately but that can play well here. The young Arab folk from there that are active in our county C4L cast large shadows and have loyal followings. We got one of them elected to our district committee during the last state convention a few months ago and the networking with generic republicans around here is vastly improving. This is all because we mobilize in politics and thus are seeing improved relations and expanding allies.

[erowe1]

First off, what's in store is that non-conservative facts about her or whomever will be standard talking points at local GOP meetings throughout the state thus killing optimism, support, turnout and will affect the governor's reelection bid. Enhancing that bid will be Amash as wingman at top of ticket because only he can keep the base intact plus draw higher turnout against the dems in key areas, one of which is Dearborn. Not only because he is Arab but because his foreign policy stance is so crucial, like Rand's but more so. There's a certain amount of collectivism in minority ethnicities, unfortunately but that can play well here. The young Arab folk from there that are active in our county C4L cast large shadows and have loyal followings. We got one of them elected to our district committee during the last state convention a few months ago and the networking with generic republicans around here is vastly improving. This is all because we mobilize in politics and thus are seeing improved relations and expanding allies.

Dearborn's not a big factor out of the whole state. I think Michigan's Arab population is about 1% like most other states.

[supermario21]

Republicans haven't been competitive in Michigan since the Arabs flipped from R to D after the war. Bush and Spencer Abraham almost won in 2000, and in a non-presidential year Abraham whitewashed the Dem.

[erowe1]

Republicans haven't been competitive in Michigan since the Arabs flipped from R to D after the war. Bush and Spencer Abraham almost won in 2000, and in a non-presidential year Abraham whitewashed the Dem.

Republicans won all the statewide elections there in 2010.

[wetroof]

this is good because without any exposure you have 10% of those polled picking Amash. this probably translates into a lot of active campaigners.

[AJ Antimony]

Ron did between campaigns. It can be done.,

Are you seriously comparing two presidential campaigns with two House campaigns?

[AJ Antimony]

First off, what's in store is that non-conservative facts about her or whomever will be standard talking points at local GOP meetings throughout the state thus killing optimism, support, turnout and will affect the governor's reelection bid. Enhancing that bid will be Amash as wingman at top of ticket because only he can keep the base intact plus draw higher turnout against the dems in key areas, one of which is Dearborn. Not only because he is Arab but because his foreign policy stance is so crucial, like Rand's but more so. There's a certain amount of collectivism in minority ethnicities, unfortunately but that can play well here. The young Arab folk from there that are active in our county C4L cast large shadows and have loyal followings. We got one of them elected to our district committee during the last state convention a few months ago and the networking with generic republicans around here is vastly improving. This is all because we mobilize in politics and thus are seeing improved relations and expanding allies.

That sounds good, but again, you're assuming some things. For example, "[Amash can] draw higher turnout against the dems in key areas, one of which is Dearborn"

Do you have any evidence to support that this can be done? Or is this wishful thinking? Again, is it wise to risk a long House career on the assumption that people will turn out for certain reasons?

To be clear, I'm not trying to argue against a Senate bid. I'm just trying to raise some points so you guys don't throw away a House career because of shaky assumptions and wishful thinking. Just trying to help.

[erowe1]

That sounds good, but again, you're assuming some things. For example, "[Amash can] draw higher turnout against the dems in key areas, one of which is Dearborn"

Do you have any evidence to support that this can be done? Or is this wishful thinking? Again, is it wise to risk a long House career on the assumption that people will turn out for certain reasons?

To be clear, I'm not trying to argue against a Senate bid. I'm just trying to raise some points so you guys don't throw away a House career because of shaky assumptions and wishful thinking. Just trying to help.

I don't think Dearborn is a factor.

But that aside, Amash is definitely the kind of Republican who can get a lot of support from independents. And in Michigan, that will be a factor.

[Warlord]

Amash would lose badly. Some people don't realize how difficult it is to go from congressman to running statewide.

Nobody has heard of Amash outside his district and unless he spends millions they still wont know anything about him and believe me the DNC if he was the nominee would be straight in there with millions branding him as unacceptable. It would not be a fair fight and he'd lose.

The woman Land is the best bet for the GOP... I dont see how they can attack her and she's ran statewide twice before winning 55% of the vote. She has the right profile to quietly ride Snyder's coat tails into office without much fuss or controversy.

[erowe1]

Amash would lose badly. Some people don't realize how difficult it is to go from congressman to running statewide.

Aside from someone who's already been a governor or US Senator, US Congressman is the best background someone can have to run for US Senate. Secretary of State is not any better than that.

I see Amash winning. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

[Warlord]

Aside from someone who's already been a governor or US Senator, US Congressman is the best background someone can have to run for US Senate. Secretary of State is not any better than that.

I see Amash winning. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Well you saw nothing wrong with Mourdock. According to you he ran a flawless campaign and just got unlucky that tens of thousands of people split their vote for some random, unspecified, unfathomable reason.

[erowe1]

Well you saw nothing wrong with Mourdock. According to you he ran a flawless campaign and just got unlucky that tens of thousands of people split their vote for some random, unspecified, unfathomable reason.

He didn't run a flawless campaign. But his opponent had an advantage, having been a congressman.

[Warlord]

He didn't run a flawless campaign. But his opponent had an advantage, having been a congressman.

No he did not. His opponents advantage stemmed from his idiotic campaign where he blew it (which you completely fail to admit).

The Dem could have been your neighbor and he'd have won. The Dem also had all the outside support he needed and millions from DNC/crony corporate donors/Reid. Amash wouldn't get any of this. They'd cut him adrift.

[AJ Antimony]

Amash is definitely the kind of Republican who can get a lot of support from independents

But isn't this just wishful thinking? Is there any evidence that could actually back up this claim?

[AJ Antimony]

Amash would lose badly. Some people don't realize how difficult it is to go from congressman to running statewide.

Nobody has heard of Amash outside his district and unless he spends millions they still wont know anything about him and believe me the DNC if he was the nominee would be straight in there with millions branding him as unacceptable. It would not be a fair fight and he'd lose.

The woman Land is the best bet for the GOP... I dont see how they can attack her and she's ran statewide twice before winning 55% of the vote. She has the right profile to quietly ride Snyder's coat tails into office without much fuss or controversy.

Before Justin Amash, Jeff Flake was the #2 libertarian in Congress behind Ron Paul. When Flake ran for Senate, every ad against him was attacking his voting record. You name it, he was attacked for it. And he still won. Amash by no means would be DOA. With a great campaign strategy and with millions in outside spending coming in, Amash should have no trouble whatsoever at least making the race competitive. Besides, wasn't it Land herself that said something like 'I've learned the hard way: do not underestimate Justin Amash'?

[Brett85]

I'd really like to get Amash into the Senate so that we can at least have one non interventionist in the U.S Senate.

[Christian Liberty]

I'd really like to get Amash into the Senate so that we can at least have one non interventionist in the U.S Senate.
Does the House get to vote on the Iran bill? Did/is Amash vot(ing) against it?

[Warlord]

Before Justin Amash, Jeff Flake was the #2 libertarian in Congress behind Ron Paul. When Flake ran for Senate, every ad against him was attacking his voting record. You name it, he was attacked for it. And he still won. Amash by no means would be DOA. With a great campaign strategy and with millions in outside spending coming in, Amash should have no trouble whatsoever at least making the race competitive. Besides, wasn't it Land herself that said something like 'I've learned the hard way: do not underestimate Justin Amash'?

Flake nearly lost and he was in a deep red state!

And Amash would not get outside spending. They would rather a Dem win than him. Kind of like the Sanford race he'd be on his own.

[Brett85]

Does the House get to vote on the Iran bill? Did/is Amash vot(ing) against it?

I don't think they've voted on it yet, but I'm sure Amash would vote against it. He's voted against similar resolutions.

[Brett85]

Amash did vote in favor of one sanctions bill against Iran, but he's voted against about five others. The sanctions bill he voted for wasn't really even a sanction against the country of Iran, but simply a sanction against companies that sell weapons of mass descruction to them. It wasn't really a bad bill like most sanctions are. It wasn't the type of sanctions that hurt the people of Iran.

[AJ Antimony]

Flake nearly lost and he was in a deep red state!

And Amash would not get outside spending. They would rather a Dem win than him. Kind of like the Sanford race he'd be on his own.

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

First, Arizona isn't exactly deep red.

Second, even if it was, that shouldn't excuse your presumption that No-voting congressmen are unelectable. You are suggesting that Amash is doomed because his voting record would be attacked over and over. Well, Jeff Flake was attacked over and over for his No votes and he still won. I accept that as evidence that No-voting congressmen aren't doomed from winning higher office.

Third, Amash would get outside spending. Ever heard of the Club for Growth or FreedomWorks?

Fourth, you should learn a thing or two (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mark+sanford) about Mark Sanford before comparing him to others. National Republicans abandoned him entirely for personal reasons. It had nothing to do with where he stood on the issues.

Fifth, since Amash doesn't have any "personal issues," how can you possibly suggest that the NRSC would abandon him? Sure, they won't spend money in Michigan if he's down by 30 in the polls, but if the race is competitive, you better believe the NRSC will be interested. Maybe you missed the part where Republicans would like to be the majority party in the Senate?

[sailingaway]

Flake nearly lost and he was in a deep red state!

And Amash would not get outside spending. They would rather a Dem win than him. Kind of like the Sanford race he'd be on his own.

Flake voted for the Patriot act and lost a bunch of US.

Amash is far better than Flake.

[supermario21]

Mitt Romney won Arizona by a larger margin than McCain did (10 points). That's a bigger margin than a deep red state like Georgia (Paul Broun anyone??). Flake could only muster a 49-45 plurality.

[sailingaway]

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

First, Arizona isn't exactly deep red.

Second, even if it was, that shouldn't excuse your presumption that No-voting congressmen are unelectable. You are suggesting that Amash is doomed because his voting record would be attacked over and over. Well, Jeff Flake was attacked over and over for his No votes and he still won. I accept that as evidence that No-voting congressmen aren't doomed from winning higher office.

Third, Amash would get outside spending. Ever heard of the Club for Growth or FreedomWorks?

Fourth, you should learn a thing or two (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mark+sanford) about Mark Sanford before comparing him to others. National Republicans abandoned him entirely for personal reasons. It had nothing to do with where he stood on the issues.

Fifth, since Amash doesn't have any "personal issues," how can you possibly suggest that the NRSC would abandon him? Sure, they won't spend money in Michigan if he's down by 30 in the polls, but if the race is competitive, you better believe the NRSC will be interested. Maybe you missed the part where Republicans would like to be the majority party in the Senate?


RE outside spending, Liberty For All (the Ron Paul supporter PAC who supported Massie) said something about supporting Amash if he ran for Senate, as I recall.

[sailingaway]

Mitt Romney won Arizona by a larger margin than McCain did (10 points). That's a bigger margin than a deep red state like Georgia (Paul Broun anyone??). Flake could only muster a 49-45 plurality.

Romney was tougher on illegal immigration than McCain, at least in rhetoric. This is ARIZONA.

[FSP-Rebel]

RE outside spending, Liberty For All (the Ron Paul supporter PAC who supported Massie) said something about supporting Amash if he ran for Senate, as I recall.

Yep, to the tune of 7 figures.

[erowe1]

Fourth, you should learn a thing or two (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mark+sanford) about Mark Sanford before comparing him to others. National Republicans abandoned him entirely for personal reasons. It had nothing to do with where he stood on the issues.


I doubt that.

[Warlord]

Flake voted for the Patriot act and lost a bunch of US.

Amash is far better than Flake.

I never said he isn't... he obviously is and has a perfect voting record but if Flake can barely win in AZ can you imagine what they will do to Justin in MI?

Bloodbath.

[Warlord]

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

First, Arizona isn't exactly deep red.

Second, even if it was, that shouldn't excuse your presumption that No-voting congressmen are unelectable. You are suggesting that Amash is doomed because his voting record would be attacked over and over. Well, Jeff Flake was attacked over and over for his No votes and he still won. I accept that as evidence that No-voting congressmen aren't doomed from winning higher office.

Third, Amash would get outside spending. Ever heard of the Club for Growth or FreedomWorks?

Fourth, you should learn a thing or two (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mark+sanford) about Mark Sanford before comparing him to others. National Republicans abandoned him entirely for personal reasons. It had nothing to do with where he stood on the issues.

Fifth, since Amash doesn't have any "personal issues," how can you possibly suggest that the NRSC would abandon him? Sure, they won't spend money in Michigan if he's down by 30 in the polls, but if the race is competitive, you better believe the NRSC will be interested. Maybe you missed the part where Republicans would like to be the majority party in the Senate?

Flake won but in a deep red state by 2 points. He performed woefully. Justin would get beat up even harder by the DNC in MI and I think would lose.

[sailingaway]

I never said he isn't... he obviously is and has a perfect voting record but if Flake can barely win in AZ can you imagine what they will do to Justin in MI?

Bloodbath.


What is your point? That we should want a 'winner' who isn't good over a truly good candidate?

I don't want to LOSE Justin. I want to support him and let him find out his chances early so we can keep him in the House in case he doesn't have a real chance at the Senate for whatever reason. However there isn't anyone I would support OVER him for Senate.

[sailingaway]

Flake won but in a deep red state by 2 points. He performed woefully. Justin would get beat up even harder by the DNC in MI and I think would lose.

Again you say Arizona is deep red. It simply isn't.

Whereas Amash's civil liberties record would be attractive across party lines, unlike Flake-who-voted-for-the-Patriot-Act

Will it be enough?

I dunno.

[FSP-Rebel]

Again you say Arizona is deep red. It simply isn't.
.
It's called creating a narrative to fit one's meme. It's usually on full display when we're discussing an Amash Senate run.

[Warlord]

Again you say Arizona is deep red. It simply isn't.

Whereas Amash's civil liberties record would be attractive across party lines, unlike Flake-who-voted-for-the-Patriot-Act

Will it be enough?

I dunno.

Flake underperformed Romney massively there and I think Justin would get slapped hard with his voting record should he be the nominee

[supermario21]

Flake's opponent was a moderate-conservative Democrat. The Patriot Act/civil liberties issues were not in play.

[wormyguy]

Michigan is 22 points more Democratic than Arizona (Cook PVI R+7 vs. D+4), so the point is a very valid one. If it had been Conway/Paul in Michigan, it would have been a 61-39 landslide for Conway, and Flake would have lost to Carmona 57-38.

Also, Arizona is more Republican than Georgia (R+7 vs. R+6), just in case any of you who are arguing "Arizona isn't a deep red state!" are also claiming that "Broun can't possibly lose in Georgia, because it's a deep red state!"

[Brett85]

I never said he isn't... he obviously is and has a perfect voting record but if Flake can barely win in AZ can you imagine what they will do to Justin in MI?

Bloodbath.

Justin has an ideology that's 180 degrees opposite of Flake's ideology. I don't really see why you're comparing Amash and Flake.

[wormyguy]

Justin has an ideology that's 180 degrees opposite of Flake's ideology. I don't really see why you're comparing Amash and Flake.

http://www.opencongress.org/people/compare?utf8=✓&representatives=true&person1=412438&person2=400134&commit=Compare


Justin Amash (http://www.opencongress.org/people/show/412438_Justin_Amash) and Jeff Flake (http://www.opencongress.org/people/show/400134_Jeff_Flake) have voted together 1527 times on roll call votes since January, 2007 in votes where neither abstained, representing a voting similarity of 84%. The list below highlights how their voting records compare on passage of bills and editorially-selected "hot" votes on amendments.

16% different is now 180 degrees opposite?

[Warlord]

Michigan is 22 points more Democratic than Arizona (Cook PVI R+7 vs. D+4), so the point is a very valid one. If it had been Conway/Paul in Michigan, it would have been a 61-39 landslide for Conway, and Flake would have lost to Carmona 57-38.

Also, Arizona is more Republican than Georgia (R+7 vs. R+6), just in case any of you who are arguing "Arizona isn't a deep red state!" are also claiming that "Broun can't possibly lose in Georgia, because it's a deep red state!"

I think Broun would easily win because the Dems are just so weak in GA... in AZ they held the governors mansion little more than a few years ago (wasn't Cousin Janet their governor before joining the Obama admin?)

[wormyguy]

I think Broun would easily win because the Dems are just so weak in GA... in AZ they held the governors mansion little more than a few years ago (wasn't Cousin Janet their governor before joining the Obama admin?)

If there is anyone who can lose in Georgia, it's Broun. Man has a severe case of foot-in-mouth disease. I want him to win but I would never bet on it even if he gets past the primary.

And yes, Obama did the GOP a favor by removing from office two red state Democratic governors, Janet and Sebelius.

[Brett85]

16% different is now 180 degrees opposite?[/FONT][/SIZE]

A lot of votes in the house are simply procedural votes. Justin can appeal to independents and Democrats on a lot of issues that someone like Flake can't. He has different positions than Flake on the Patriot Act, the NDAA, warrantless wiretapping, drones, foreign war, foreign military bases, sanctions, marriage, drugs, etc. Amash has far more appeal to independent voters and Democrats than someone like Flake.

[AJ Antimony]

Mitt Romney won Arizona by a larger margin than McCain did (10 points). That's a bigger margin than a deep red state like Georgia (Paul Broun anyone??). Flake could only muster a 49-45 plurality.

What's your point?

[AJ Antimony]

RE outside spending, Liberty For All (the Ron Paul supporter PAC who supported Massie) said something about supporting Amash if he ran for Senate, as I recall.

Yes! Them too. I forgot about them.

[sailingaway]

Flake underperformed Romney massively there and I think Justin would get slapped hard with his voting record should he be the nominee

but Flake to Romney has nothing to do with Amash who is better than both.

[AJ Antimony]

Michigan is 22 points more Democratic than Arizona (Cook PVI R+7 vs. D+4), so the point is a very valid one. If it had been Conway/Paul in Michigan, it would have been a 61-39 landslide for Conway, and Flake would have lost to Carmona 57-38.

Also, Arizona is more Republican than Georgia (R+7 vs. R+6), just in case any of you who are arguing "Arizona isn't a deep red state!" are also claiming that "Broun can't possibly lose in Georgia, because it's a deep red state!"

You can't just flip the numbers around like that. You are throwing out all the factors that produced those numbers--factors which are unique to those specific candidates in their specific races in their specific circumstances.

For example, your flip of the Kentucky results completely removes the 2010 "wave" factor. In 2010, Michigan Republican Rick Snyder won the governor's race 58%-40%. You're really telling me that if Kentucky SOS Jack Conway and Kentucky eye doctor Rand Paul were the nominees for US Senate in Michigan in 2010, Conway would have won 61-39, even though Republicans won basically every other race in the state? Including the governor's race by a huge margin? Sorry, you can't flip numbers like that.

[wormyguy]

A lot of votes in the house are simply procedural votes. Justin can appeal to independents and Democrats on a lot of issues that someone like Flake can't. He has different positions than Flake on the Patriot Act, the NDAA, warrantless wiretapping, drones, foreign war, foreign military bases, sanctions, marriage, drugs, etc. Amash has far more appeal to independent voters and Democrats than someone like Flake.

The OpenCongress comparison tool specifically excludes procedural votes.


You can't just flip the numbers around like that. You are throwing out all the factors that produced those numbers--factors which are unique to those specific candidates in their specific races in their specific circumstances.

For example, your flip of the Kentucky results completely removes the 2010 "wave" factor. In 2010, Michigan Republican Rick Snyder won the governor's race 58%-40%. You're really telling me that if Kentucky SOS Jack Conway and Kentucky eye doctor Rand Paul were the nominees for US Senate in Michigan in 2010, Conway would have won 61-39, even though Republicans won basically every other race in the state? Including the governor's race by a huge margin? Sorry, you can't flip numbers like that.

The election was in 2010 in Kentucky as well; it is completely legitimate to adjust the numbers to reflect Michigan's partisan lean as opposed to Kentucky's. If it wasn't the wave year of 2010, Conway (and Trey Greyson, too), would almost certainly have handily won, I'm sorry to say.

[AJ Antimony]

The election was in 2010 in Kentucky as well; it is completely legitimate to adjust the numbers to reflect Michigan's partisan lean as opposed to Kentucky's.

If you want to speculate how Conway/Rand would have performed had they been running in Michigan, then you have to adjust voter make-up and turnout, NOT the final results. I mean look at Kentucky. KY in terms of voter registration is solid Democrat... but federal election results are almost always Republican. Adjust the factors that produce the results. You can't just adjust the results.


If it wasn't the wave year of 2010, Conway (and Trey Greyson, too), would almost certainly have handily won, I'm sorry to say.

Let me guess. You have absolutely no evidence to back this up.

[IndianaPolitico]

I am really unsure about Amash running for senate, we don't want to lose him.

[jkob]

The dem candidate Richard Carmona was the Surgeon General under George W. Bush, a "moderate", Hispanic, and a Vietnam veteran. He was a strong candidate and I think the dems here will run him for office again soon. Flake also faced a contested primary vs Wil Cardon who was rich enough to self fund and they ran pretty negative against each other. Not to mention, the Libertarian candidate got more than the margin of victory. I don't think you can really compare the 2012 AZ senate race to a senate race in 2014 in another state, especially Michigan.

[AJ Antimony]

The dem candidate Richard Carmona was the Surgeon General under George W. Bush, a "moderate", Hispanic, and a Vietnam veteran. He was a strong candidate and I think the dems here will run him for office again soon. Flake also faced a contested primary vs Wil Cardon who was rich enough to self fund and they ran pretty negative against each other. Not to mention, the Libertarian candidate got more than the margin of victory. I don't think you can really compare the 2012 AZ senate race to a senate race in 2014 in another state, especially Michigan.

The only comparison I made is that Jeff Flake votes No very frequently and yet even with a very strong Democrat solely attacking his voting record, he still won.

Some people think that voting No on everything makes it impossible to move up to higher office. Flake's promotion shows otherwise.

[Brett85]

The only comparison I made is that Jeff Flake votes No very frequently and yet even with a very strong Democrat solely attacking his voting record, he still won.

He might've voted that way five years ago. He's completely sold out since then.

[AJ Antimony]

He might've voted that way five years ago. He's completely sold out since then.

You can't say something like that without backing it up with some sort of evidence.

[Brett85]

You can't say something like that without backing it up with some sort of evidence.

http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/05/08/another-one-bites-the-dust-jeff-flake-flip-flops-on-gun-control/

[AJ Antimony]

http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/05/08/another-one-bites-the-dust-jeff-flake-flip-flops-on-gun-control/

Aaaaaand of course your evidence would be a single, dated Glen Beck opinion piece.

It turns out Jeff Flake voted against Manchin-Toomey (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00097) and against the Internet Tax (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3016566/posts).

I'd say 'try again' but I wouldn't want you to embarrass yourself again.

[Krzysztof Lesiak]

He's gotta stay in Congress then. Will be very, very hard to take the primary, and the general will be even harder.

We can't take any risks.

[Brett85]

Aaaaaand of course your evidence would be a single, dated Glen Beck opinion piece.

It turns out Jeff Flake voted against Manchin-Toomey (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00097) and against the Internet Tax (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3016566/posts).

I'd say 'try again' but I wouldn't want you to embarrass yourself again.

Are you really saying that you're a fan of Jeff Flake? He flirted with supporting both of these bills and has said that he'll vote for the Manchin-Toomey bill if some changes are made. He also voted in favor of the indefinite detention of U.S citizens in the NDAA. Yeah, some friend of liberty he is.

[FSP-Rebel]

Are you really saying that you're a fan of Jeff Flake? He flirted with supporting both of these bills and has said that he'll vote for the Manchin-Toomey bill if some changes are made. He also voted in favor of the indefinite detention of U.S citizens in the NDAA. Yeah, some friend of liberty he is.
It's not about being a fan or not, it's about continuing to apply the right kinds of pressure en mass on Flake and push him to make the right kinds of votes and to not give up on him. It is pathetic on his part that he's waffling but it's up to the grassroots of AZ to reel him back in, I get that McCain is a lost cause. I don't believe I've ever read any on the ground reports out of AZ so I don't know how effective or active certain elements of the roots are there. Flake is susceptible to constituent pressure where I believe McCain thinks himself above the peons.

[AJ Antimony]

Are you really saying that you're a fan of Jeff Flake? He flirted with supporting both of these bills and has said that he'll vote for the Manchin-Toomey bill if some changes are made. He also voted in favor of the indefinite detention of U.S citizens in the NDAA. Yeah, some friend of liberty he is.

Until he actually votes the wrong way on major legislation, I will continue to be the same fan of him that I always have been. I agree that it's bizarre that since becoming a Senator he's verbally trying to be Mr. Moderate on every issue, but until his actual voting record changes, I won't be significantly bothered.

And unfortunately you've embarrassed yourself again by suggesting that he voted for indefinite detention. As has been discussed many times here before, it turns out that he didn't! The FY 2012 NDAA is the legislation that contained the indefinite detention provision. He voted against it. He voted for the FY 2013 NDAA, but it didn't contain indefinite detention language (since such language was already law).

[Brett85]

And unfortunately you've embarrassed yourself again by suggesting that he voted for indefinite detention. As has been discussed many times here before, it turns out that he didn't! The FY 2012 NDAA is the legislation that contained the indefinite detention provision. He voted against it. He voted for the FY 2013 NDAA, but it didn't contain indefinite detention language (since such language was already law).

He voted against it for different reasons than the indefinite detention provision. He voted against the Smith-Amash amendment that repealed the indefinite detention provision in the NDAA.

[Warlord]

It's not about being a fan or not, it's about continuing to apply the right kinds of pressure en mass on Flake and push him to make the right kinds of votes and to not give up on him. It is pathetic on his part that he's waffling but it's up to the grassroots of AZ to reel him back in, I get that McCain is a lost cause. I don't believe I've ever read any on the ground reports out of AZ so I don't know how effective or active certain elements of the roots are there. Flake is susceptible to constituent pressure where I believe McCain thinks himself above the peons.

This is true. He reads his facebook comments and no doubt the office tell him whats going on. McCain is in his own world of DC cocktail parties and kissing Democrats butt. He really doesn't care.

Flake will probably get more conservative as he gets further into his term and closer to re-election. This often happens with senators. They suck straight after election and start coming back. Flake has made some stupid decisions but on the "senate scale" he's still less bad than what was there previously. Kyl was just horrible,