That Poll Showing Saxby Struggling

Let’s keep in mind that the Survey USA poll done for WMAZ was taken on a Sunday and Monday. Had it been Monday and Tuesday, I’d give it much greater credibility.

But trying to take a poll on a Sunday is always problematic, especially in the South, given people’s church going habits. I would think Survey USA would know better. In the years I’ve taken polls in Georgia and other southern states, I never poll on Sundays or Wednesdays.

39 comments

  1. I remember noticing in 2004 that Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll always drifted toward the Democrats on the weekend. I’ll try and find some data to back that up but that’s what I remember.

  2. Mike Hauncho says:

    I find it hard to believe that Saxby is only up 2 points when McCain’s numbers are still holding.

  3. Also McCain is not the incumbent (at least for GA he is not seen as an extention of Bush) in an anti-incumbent movement. Plus, people are really just tired of Saxby’s behavior and voting record.
    And, since the GOP didn’t offer an option in the primary, people are realizing they must oust him in the general in order to replace him later.

  4. Icarus says:

    “later” is 6 years from now. This isn’t a rep seat that can be challenged again in two years. If you want 6 more years of Reid/Pelosi, Jim Martin is your guy.

  5. jsm says:

    Don’t forget that Chambliss was booed by his own at a state convention. He may have less support in his own party than he realizes.

  6. Harry says:

    Well, based on discussions in my circle of Georgia Republicans (libertarian and otherwise) Chambliss is in trouble. There’s negativity towards the man among those who should be supporters. Perhaps come election day they’ll hold their nose and vote for him, as I will, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

  7. North Ga Indy says:

    Chambliss will win. Jim “The Liberal” Martin cannot win in GA, Cleland could not in 2002.

  8. Doug Deal says:

    John,

    After the Constitution is virtually suspended with the Dems having 60+ Senators and a pocket full of RINO’s leading the charge to socialism over the next 6 years, will there be any point to take it back?

  9. John Konop says:

    Doug

    They way I look at it Saxby and Martin are about the same. I will give Martin credit he is honest about blowing my money on failed social programs. Do you have a better idea on how to replace Saxby?

  10. Icarus says:

    John,

    Jim Martin would vote for:

    1) Union elections by open ballot.
    2) Census “sampling” instead of actual counts, to strenghten representation from “traditionally under counted groups”, i.e., Democrats.
    3) Supreme Court justices that would re-write our laws with a Ouija board.

    That’s just a few differences, off the top of my head.

  11. Harry, I’m ashamed that the GA GOP didn’t cough up opposition to him THIS year. Good grief, one of the biggest RINOs in DC. Things had better change in our party, and soon, or we’re going to die on the vine.

  12. Bill Simon says:

    “3) Supreme Court justices that would re-write our laws with a Ouija board.”

    Is that thing still around? Did Mark Richt use that to figure out whether he was going to call for a Black-out or a Red-out?

  13. Bill Simon says:

    Icarus,

    SERIOUS QUESTION: Do you like being represented by a dishonest politican (i.e., Saxby Chambliss)?

    Because…he is dishonest when he claims to be “conservative” and we have repeated instances of that being false through his actual actions.

  14. Icarus says:

    I have no basis to indicate that I believe Saxby is dishonest.

    And I think the “conservative” brand is tarnished beyond repair at this point, as no one even agrees what it means, and most who claim to be it fail miserably to live up to it anyway.

    That said, what I do like about Saxby is that I think he does a good job of delivering what he thinks the consituents want, while also works hard to actually get some things done. His efforts to actually fix a few problems have caused him some problems with the base (i.e., immigration reform, oil drilling), but each time, he’s actually listened to the opposition, and changed his positions accordingly.

    His biggest problem has been his loyalty to Bush. For the first 4 years of his term, it’s what we voters demanded of him. Now, to paraphrase a headline I saw somewhere today, the voters are angry, but they don’t know why.

    I’m not willing to take my anger out on Saxby and get a horribly inferior Senator for six years because the Bush agenda that we (for the most part) all supported didn’t work out the way we hoped.

    Saxby has given us the government we have demanded of him. We need to make sure we demand different things during his next term.

  15. bowersville says:

    Yes, a conservative should have stepped up to the plate and challenged Chambliss.

    No, they didn’t.

    Yes, conservatives are mad a Chambliss.

    No, taking a chance on sending a Democrat to the US Senate and allowing the Democrats to have control without a chance of a filibuster is suicide for conservative ideas to have a chance at survival in our generation.

    Yes, if you send Jim Martin to the Senate, you will help the Democrats lead our country into socialism without opposition.

    No. I’m not happy about it. I will hold my nose and vote Chambliss.

  16. Harry says:

    It’s not going to be a nice feeling for Chambliss to be heckled and shunned by Republicans at scheduled events just before the election. I really fear that he’ll be defeated. Some conservative Georgians on FreeRepublic were saying their vote for senator will be an “undervote” – they’re voting for none of the above.

  17. bowersville says:

    Yesterday Rasmussen was showing the bailout about 33/33/33. Today about 50/50.

    The FRs can sit it out all they wish. The AARPs and pre-AARP’rs will come out in droves, they’ve been looking at their 401K’s.

  18. Harry says:

    Yeah, but do you think an unnecessary bailout will really help them or any of us? Especially if the root causes aren’t being addressed?

    If you’re going to bail out Wall Street, credit card companies, the auto industry, the insurance industry, the DC metro, the northeast heating oil industry, the farmers, etc., then why not go ahead and bail out the rest of us?

  19. bowersville says:

    Zell Miller once said, “It’s not what you do that counts, it’s people’s perception of what you do that counts.”

    It depends on the spin.

  20. Bill Simon says:

    “I have no basis to indicate that I believe Saxby is dishonest.”

    Wouldn’t the clearer answer to write have been: “I have no basis to believe Saxby is dishonest.”?

  21. esterday Rasmussen was showing the bailout about 33/33/33. Today about 50/50.

    Whatever. Here’s what Sen. Feinstein said on the floor of the Senate, just before the vote:

    “Senators have 6 years so that they can take tough votes when tough votes are called for; so that they can vote for the best interests of their country — even sometimes when their constituents don’t understand it, or may be opposed to it… I’ve received 91,000 phone calls and emails from California – 85,000 of them opposed to this measure. There’s a great deal of confusion out there.”

    That’s it, folks. We’re idiots, and they’re smart. They know what’s best for us. Just go home and watch American Idol, and leave this governin’ business to them. Why, they don’t even need to know what the Constitution says — it’s not like they vote according to it, OR according to their constituents’ wishes!

    Good grief.

  22. bowersville says:

    Taft, you may be a little hard on our founding fathers. They didn’t have the Internet and the only thing they had looking into the future was Grier’s Almanac.

    Had they known what we know today, the Declaration of Independence would have read, “We hold these truths to be self evident, all people are idiots” and we must lead them down the path. What do you think political consultants, the main stream media and public relation firms are for? Sound bites and to scare the h#ll out of people, that’s what.

  23. Doug Deal says:

    I wonder if anyone other than politicans actually think that politicians are smarter than the engaged segment of voters who follow what’s going on.

  24. bowersville says:

    I hate to be so cynical, but there are only two segments of engaged voters. Us versus them, split about 30/30.

    The rest either don’t vote, register today vote today, or vote based on Saturday Night Live, Keith Olbermann , MSNBC, Hannity or Rush.

    Informed voters like to complain about low voter turn out, I don’t. I’m just fine with ignorant MFs not voting. It makes an informed voter more important. But consider the voter that only has contact with a candidate by a GOTV effort, a mailer, HuffPo, Youtube or talk radio.

  25. bowersville says:

    30/30 of people that vote.

    That’s 30 out of 100 on one side, 30 out of a 100 on the other. 30% maximum on each side.

  26. bowersville says:

    And that’s 30% informed voters maximum any way you look at it.

    Now, get down to the definition of informed. Nobody on this board has mentioned we have three Constitutional Amendment questions as to whether the Constitution of the State of Georgia shall be Amended coming up on November 4th.

    Who knew? Has anybody publicly discussed the pro’s and con’s of amending our state constitution. Who knew and when did they know?

    Take a look at Amendment 2, shall we rip off the taxpayer by providing excess tax money taken by the BOC, BOE and city council to build ACORN housing? Who knew, anybody?

  27. Doug Deal says:

    bower,

    Any and all Constitutional amendments that I have not been made aware of I vote against. In fact, a vote against is my default for anything that changes the Constitution. So, you guys can guess what my three votes are going to be.

  28. liberator says:

    Hey Deal how about the GOP stop electing sellouts like Chambliss and McCain? They just voted for Socialism and against our Constitution. You GOP lapdogs would defend these guys if they nominated Castro as a Republicrat!

  29. Doug Deal says:

    liberator,

    If Castro would work to frustrate the Democratic caucus from getting what it wants enacted, he would beat electing a Democrat.

    Look at it this way, lib, take World War II. Would you have rather had Hitler beat Russia and control all of their territory because Stalin was a totalitarian socialist, or given the choice, would you want it under the control of someone who would work against him?

    Protecting out rights is about using the checks and balances (the parties working against each other is one example) to limit one side from taking too much control. The Libertarian method of sitting in the corner making fart noises while Rome burns is 100 times worse than compromising on Chambliss to protect the filibuster.

  30. DutchDawg says:

    Bill:

    7 in a row. And counting. Nice try having Bama fight the nerds’ battles for them, though.

    Oh, did I mention?

    7 in a row.

Comments are closed.