POLL: Hostettler v. Coats; others irrelevant

[melensdad]

... they must not want the job that bad.

Or maybe nobody asked

But I'm sure you'll criticize him in absence of any evidence either way.

 

[mrjarrell]

Or maybe nobody asked

But I'm sure you'll criticize him in absence of any evidence either way.

Maybe nobody did ask. Now there's a chance to do so. Nope. Unlike Todd Youngs detractors I have no dog in his race and no reason to criticise him for not answering. Other political candidates across the country are answering, I'm sure he'll find the few minutes it takes to do so. If he doesn't he doesn't. He's not my candidate.

 

[dburkhead]

Yes, I do. Other candidates in other states have had no problem answering the questionnaire and then getting the results published by the Gun Rights Examiners online. It's free publicity and if they don't have the few minutes it takes...well, then they must not want the job that bad.

Well somebody in the office of those other candidates answered it anyway.

And your few minutes, and someone else's few minutes, and yet another someone's few minutes, and so on starts to add up after a while.

"Do not confuse 'duty' with what other people expect of you; they are utterly different. Duty is a debt you owe yourself to fulfill obligations you have assumed voluntarily. Paying that debt can entail anytbing from years of patient work to instant willingness to die. Difficult it may be, but the reward is self-respect. But there is no reward at all for doing what other people expect of you, and to do so is not merely difficult, but impossible. It is easier to deal with a footpad than it is with the leech who wants 'just a few minutes of your time, please--this won’t take long.' Time is your total capital, and the minutes of your life are painfully few. If you allow yourself to fall into the vice of agreeing to such requests, they quickly snowball to the point where these parasites will use up 100 percent of your time--and squawk for more! So learn to say No--and to be rude about it when necessary. Otherwise you will not have time to carry out your duty, or to do your own work, and certainly no time for love and happiness. The termites will nibble away your life and leave none of it for you. (This rule does not mean that you must not do a favor for a friend, or even a stranger. But let the choice be yours. Don’t do it because it is 'expected' of you.)" Lazarus Long, Time Enough for Love by Robert A. Heinlein.

 

[Lyudmilla]

The GOA rates Hostettler as excellent.

Not the pansy NRA, but the GOA.

Then again, he did stump for them: "Rep. John Hostettler, Republican Congressman from Indiana: "Gun Owners of America is the pit bull of the Second Amendment. They are relentless and never give any ground whatsoever to the gun grabbers."

John Hostettler was the most pro-2nd amendment member of congress. Anybody involved during that time can verify that.

 

[photoshooter]

Frankly: I'm very tired of this argument about who should drop out. So, I'm shifting my tactics on it.

After having Hostettler staffers say the same thing ("we can't split the vote and beat Coats") to Behney staffers last night in Ft. Wayne - its pretty apparent that there is a major effort underway to get Behney out of the race.

My response to them is: if your guy hadn't been a Johnny come lately and jumped into the race only 5 weeks ahead of Dan Coats and more than 3 months after the others, we wouldn't be in this problem of a 3.5 candidate vs Fly-In Party Hack.

Therefore, I now call on Mr. Hostettler to jump out of the race.

Even if his support is split three ways between Coats, Behney and Stutzman - Marlin or Richard will have more than enough to beat Fly-In candidate Coats (depending on just how accurate those polls really are about the Tea Party vote -remember: only about 50% of Tea Party activists are GOP).

Stutzman has an excellent record on 2A issues in the State House, and, although all the Indiana based candidates are very constitutional based (although, I'm not sure about Cocktail-Candidate Bates... he never says anything of substance), Behney is the most constitutional of all candidates - since he actually agrees with Ron Paul and Judge Andrew Napalitano on the Patriot act.

 

[CarmelHP]

My response to them is: if your guy hadn't been a Johnny come lately and jumped into the race only 5 weeks ahead of Dan Coats and more than 3 months after the others, we wouldn't be in this problem of a 3.5 candidate vs Fly-In Party Hack.

Therefore, I now call on Mr. Hostettler to jump out of the race.

So, you admit that Behney has had months more than Hostettler to garner support and Hostettler's support is high though he has hasn't had as much time to campaign. If Behney can run for a year and still have nobody heard of him, it speaks volumes. Behney won't get the nomination, that much is certain, the only question is will he hurt better candidates who can beat Coats. Personally, I think Behney is too arrogant and self-aggrandizing to ever step aside. The morning of May 5 we will find out who is right.

 

[photoshooter]

So, you admit that Behney has had months more than Hostettler to garner support and Hostettler's support is high though he has hasn't had as much time to campaign. If Behney can run for a year and still have nobody heard of him, it speaks volumes. Behney won't get the nomination, that much is certain, the only question is will he hurt better candidates who can beat Coats. Personally, I think Behney is too arrogant and self-aggrandizing to ever step aside. The morning of May 5 we will find out who is right.

Nope... not falling for lawyer speak argument on who and what I do admit. Especially since your premise is based on incomplete data.

The last time I checked Art 1 sec 3 of the Constitution, all 5 of the candidates met the requirements to run. Although Dan Coats did actually have to rent an apartment to make the third qualification.

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

As for garnering support: I'm still searching for the polls of Tea Partiers. Haven't been able to find those.

Since Behney's support comes primarily from the Tea Party grassroots -and the polls that established congressional insiders Coats and Hostettler keep citing don't have a "tea Party" factor - and are based on the old model of GOP vs DEM "likely voters" - I don't agree that Behney doesn't have the support.

We have NO INFO about the "leaked poll" - who was polled, how large the sample was, the geographic area involved, which side of the aisle, how many if any identified themselves as Tea Partiers.

Since that poll is being used to explain why Behney should drop out - let's add in the Warsaw straw poll. Good mix of Tea Party and basic GOP folks... about half of the attendees turned in ballots. Warsaw is just outside of Marlin Stutzman's Indiana Senate district - so it's fair to say this is Stutzman's back yard.

Marlin Stutzman 80
Richard Behney 76
Don Bates Jr. 47
John Hostettler 18
Dan Coats 16


The sample size here is about 50% of the typical sample size for normal political polls. Not quite apples to apples - but it's interesting to compare.



Notice, however, the top two candidates in the GOP/Pundit polls, are the bottom two candidates in the Tea Party grassroots polls. The only other Tea Party Straw poll with all 5 candidates present had a similar breakdown with Stutzman and Behney at the top again.

So, who is correct in their assessment?

Are you willing to count the Tea Parties out? Other than the straw polls - no political poll that I've seen is actually polling based on tea party activism.

Tea Party support is the wild card. Coats won't have any - and the other four are all fighting for it.

When all you use is the typical party oriented poll - is it any wonder that the two congressional insider candidates with strong ties to DC poll the highest? The next highest is the candidate with the strongest state GOP party ties - and the wild card, Tea Party activist with no party insider connection polls the lowest - but score high with the Tea Party polls. Hmmmm... sound like this race is really between Stutzman and Behney if the Tea Party activists turn out in large numbers.

If the GOP party faithful turn out in larger numbers than Tea Party activists - we're stuck with Coats or Hostettler.

 

[melensdad]

Straw Polls have historically been unreliable in predicting voter choices.

I totally disregard them based on the above fact.

They can be skewed by all sorts of factors and typically are not even close to the actual vote. I would suggest that anyone who believes that straw polls are valid should bookmark this page, then in May after the primary come back and see how accurate this straw poll is. Or isn't.

 

[photoshooter]

Ahhhh.... but this year is like no other.

Take a look at the news tonight and see how many folks are out across the country for Tea Parties.

That's your wild card. This year is not normal. It's similar - yet different - to 1994. We won't know what is what until the dust settles in November.

Even then it won't be over.

 

[CarmelHP]

So we dump mathematically valid random sampling for specialized polls. Who can argue with reasoning like that? The Behney campaign is starting to look like the idiot's parade.

 

[melensdad]

So we dump mathematically valid random sampling for specialized polls. Who can argue with reasoning like that? The Behney campaign is starting to look like the idiot's parade.

Absolutely correct. We know a bunch of things.

1. Historically straw polls are inaccurate.
2. Historically professional polls from reputable companies are accurate (to within their claimed margin of error).
3. Various straw polls this year have yielded statistically different results.
4. Various professional polls from different companies have corroborated each other, not just in this state but also in others.
5. Some people here choose to dismiss Rasmussen polling despite the fact that they called the Mass Scott Brown Senate seat upset a week before anyone else even noticed the momentum shift, and despite the fact that Rasmussen has correctly called EVERY race it polled in the past 2 years.

So yes, some people seem to be willing to dump statistically significant data sampling in favor of chronically incorrect straw polls.

I think that is the practical world's definition of denial.

 

[dburkhead]

Absolutely correct. We know a bunch of things.

1. Historically straw polls are inaccurate.
2. Historically professional polls from reputable companies are accurate (to within their claimed margin of error).
3. Various straw polls this year have yielded statistically different results.
4. Various professional polls from different companies have corroborated each other, not just in this state but also in others.
5. Some people here choose to dismiss Rasmussen polling despite the fact that they called the Mass Scott Brown Senate seat upset a week before anyone else even noticed the momentum shift, and despite the fact that Rasmussen has correctly called EVERY race it polled in the past 2 years.

So yes, some people seem to be willing to dump statistically significant data sampling in favor of chronically incorrect straw polls.

I think that is the practical world's definition of denial.

An alternate definition would be "wishful thinking."

“May it please milord Hero, the world is not what we wish it to be. It is what it is. No, I have over-assumed. Perhaps it is indeed what we wish it to be. Either way, it is what it is. Le voilâ! Behold it, self-demonstrating. Das Ding an sich. Bite it. It is. Ai-je raison? Do I speak truly?” Star Glory Road by Robert A. Heinlein. (I will note that my spell checker has "Heinlein" but not "Obama"--there's something in there, I think. )

 

[CarmelHP]

This is the Rasmussen poll monthly tracking on RealClearPolitics compared to the Daily Kos poll, all of which have Hostettler leading everyone. Only the top 3 Republican are mentioned, only 5% of voters even mentioned any other Republican candidate than these 3.
The columns don't reproduce well so best to look at the original.

2010 Indiana Senate Race

Indiana Senate - Coats vs. Ellsworth

PollDateSampleCoats (R)Ellsworth (D)SpreadRasmussen Reports03/17 - 03/18500 LV4934Coats +15Daily Kos/R200002/22 - 02/24600 LV3736Coats +1Rasmussen Reports02/16 - 02/17500 LV4632Coats +14
More Polling Data | News

Indiana Senate - Hostettler vs. Ellsworth

PollDateSampleHostettler (R)Ellsworth (D)SpreadRasmussen Reports03/17 - 03/18500 LV5032Hostettler +18Daily Kos/R200002/22 - 02/24600 LV4034Hostettler +6Rasmussen Reports02/16 - 02/17500 LV4627Hostettler +19
More Polling Data | News

Indiana Senate - Stutzman vs. Ellsworth

PollDateSampleStutzman (R)Ellsworth (D)SpreadRasmussen Reports03/17 - 03/18500 LV4134Stutzman +7Rasmussen Reports02/16 - 02/17500 LV4030Stutzman +10

 

[Lyudmilla]

Therefore, I now call on Mr. Hostettler to jump out of the race.

A Behney flack calling on Hostettler to drop out of the race is a little like Luxembourg calling on the United States to surrender.

 

[photoshooter]

So we dump mathematically valid random sampling for specialized polls. Who can argue with reasoning like that? The Behney campaign is starting to look like the idiot's parade.

And you're asking me to accept a supposedly "mathematically... random sampling" as valid - when we don't have any of the actual data behind it?




A poll that is being billed as "leaked" ????? with no other sourcing? With no info about the party affiliation, geographic location, etc of those polled?

Those numbers are meaningless until put into context. AND this year, the TEA PARTIES are a wild card in the mix. No one knows how those will shape up in our primary. All polling is going to be out of context until we see how the TEA Party involvement shapes up.

How many pollsters got the Nov '94 elections wrong?

I've asked for links to polls that specifically show breakdowns between normal GOP voters vs self-proclaimed Tea Party Voters. None have been forthcoming - or even additional details in the make-up of the voters polled in the so-called "scientific" Rassmussen poll from earlier this year. What was the breakdown of political party id, or even the "Sleeping Party voters" vs the awakened TEA Party voters.

I maintain that this year is not a normal political year by any stretch of the imagination. BUT, the party faithful keep trying to make us think it is.

If all you look at is normal polling numbers that call 500 homes of "Strong Republicans" across the state - all you're going to get is a breakdown of "Strong Republicans with inner-party name ID": Coats, Hostettler and Stutzman.

The tea partys are an unknown force this year. NO ONE is polling based on them.

And the few polls that are out about the Tea Party... don't focus on Candidates in this race.

Instead we see that:

The Tea Party adherents broke down 28% independent, 17% Democrat and only 57% Republican. Not coincidentally, this bipartisan breakdown has been the way that Tea Party favoriteSarah Palin has often described movement members as "commonsense Americans" worried and....

That shows (I know, I'm quoting a poll... bear with me...) roughly 40% of TEA Partiers are not GOPers. If those numbers are anywhere close to accurate, polling based on traditional party affiliation of "likely voters" has just become meaningless in Indiana. We'll probably see more cross-over voting in the upcoming primary than we have in a long time.


From the original story on that:

The Winston Group conducted three national telephone surveys of 1,000 registered voters between December and February. Of those polled, 17 percent – more than 500 people -- said they were “part of the Tea Party movement.”

(Doing the numbers... 17% is = roughly one/sixth... so 500 times 6 = 3,000 people polled - total - nationwide.)

The poll above talked to only 500 TEA Partiers nationwide. We've got more than that in Indiana. Yesterday in Lafayette, we had almost that many in one spot.

NO ONE, not even Frank Luntz knows how the TEA Party activists will break this election cycle. I'll be surprised if it actually lines ups to the numbers I presented in those two quotes above.

Instead, I see the Hostettler camp beginning a campaign of "Bullying" - because they can't beat Dan Coats with their recycled "Savior" of politics.

It's starting to get ugly... and the Hostettler camp is directly behind it. I've already heard one report (via twitter) of a H-supporter mis-representing Behney's service record at another Tea Party.

I say again. If John can't beat "Fly-in" Dan on his own, he needs to get out of the race and endorse one of the other candidates. Any other candidate in the race (well.... probably not the empty suit guy from Richmond) can beat Darth Dan with out Hostettler mucking up the waters.

AND none of the other candidates have already lost a race to "Brad the Beautiful."

Why do I do so... because the Hostettler camp is pushing hard - using guilt tactics, and one worker even approached Mr. Behney directly on the matter.

 

[photoshooter]

This is the Rasmussen poll monthly tracking on RealClearPolitics compared to the Daily Kos poll, all of which have Hostettler leading everyone. Only the top 3 Republican are mentioned, only 5% of voters even mentioned any other Republican candidate than these 3.
The columns don't reproduce well so best to look at the original.

2010 Indiana Senate Race

Indiana Senate - Coats vs. Ellsworth

PollDateSampleCoats (R)Ellsworth (D)SpreadRasmussen Reports03/17 - 03/18500 LV4934Coats +15Daily Kos/R200002/22 - 02/24600 LV3736Coats +1Rasmussen Reports02/16 - 02/17500 LV4632Coats +14
More Polling Data | News

Indiana Senate - Hostettler vs. Ellsworth

PollDateSampleHostettler (R)Ellsworth (D)SpreadRasmussen Reports03/17 - 03/18500 LV5032Hostettler +18Daily Kos/R200002/22 - 02/24600 LV4034Hostettler +6Rasmussen Reports02/16 - 02/17500 LV4627Hostettler +19
More Polling Data | News

Indiana Senate - Stutzman vs. Ellsworth

PollDateSampleStutzman (R)Ellsworth (D)SpreadRasmussen Reports03/17 - 03/18500 LV4134Stutzman +7Rasmussen Reports02/16 - 02/17500 LV4030Stutzman +10

Notice please: Two names were not polled at all. So we have no data on them. A definitive poll would have included them.

I've heard one excuse that the poll above did included them as "other candidate" - Horse Hockey.

Including them would have been:

Question #5 "Who would you support in a race between Brad Ellsworth and Richard Behney" ... and ditto for the other guy they didn't include.

According the poll you cite: that question was never asked.

You've left two key data points completely out of the equation - and then tell me it's scientific???

Where have we heard similar methodology like this recently?

 

[photoshooter]

Absolutely correct. We know a bunch of things.

1. Historically straw polls are inaccurate.
2. Historically professional polls from reputable companies are accurate (to within their claimed margin of error).
3. Various straw polls this year have yielded statistically different results.
4. Various professional polls from different companies have corroborated each other, not just in this state but also in others.
5. Some people here choose to dismiss Rasmussen polling despite the fact that they called the Mass Scott Brown Senate seat upset a week before anyone else even noticed the momentum shift, and despite the fact that Rasmussen has correctly called EVERY race it polled in the past 2 years.

So yes, some people seem to be willing to dump statistically significant data sampling in favor of chronically incorrect straw polls.

I think that is the practical world's definition of denial.

Historically, in the days leading up the 1994 elections, the pollsters got it wrong... and Peter Jennings made his infamous quote a week later:

"Imagine a nation full of uncontrolled two-year-old rage. The voters had a temper tantrum last week....Parenting and governing don't have to be dirty words: the nation can't be run by an angry two-year-old."

But, hey, the polls favor the Savior of the Constitution, so the other guys should just drop out now.

I get it.

But, why not ask Darth Dan to go? If he's the problem, go after him. If Behney's only going to get 3% of the vote (based on the all-knowing polling) - those three percent will NOT go solely to Hostettler. He still won't win.

These attacks on Behney, show that there is more to his campaign than the polls show - otherwise the Hostettler folks wouldn't be so hot and bothered for him to drop out. They'd be targeting Stutzman where there is a larger percentage.

Let me repeat the above:

These attacks on Behney, show that there is more to his campaign than the polls show - otherwise the Hostettler folks wouldn't be so hot and bothered for him to drop out. They'd be targeting Stutzman where there is a larger percentage.

IF THE POLLS ARE CORRECT: The mere fact that the Hostettler camp is going nuts on Behney dropping out - shows that they are either nuts - because a mere 3% split amongst the other candidates won't be enough to give Hostettler the edge.

Therefore, either the polls are NOT correct, and the Hostettler camp sees more in the Behney support than the polls indicate. Or the polls are correct, and they just have a personal bias against Behney.

The guy from Richmond has a higher polling point, and *might* give Hostettler enough of an edge to beat Darth Dan. Why are they not going after him as hard?

Or, as I said above, why not go after Marlin's 18% and get him to drop out?

Dang that pesky polling data that the Hostettler camp keeps pushing. It shows Behney to not be a threat, and to not have enough support to matter since it won't all go to John - but the Hostettler camp sure keeps hammering away at getting Behney to quit the race?

WHY?

 

[CarmelHP]

Notice please: Two names were not polled at all. So we have no data on them. A definitive poll would have included them.

I've heard one excuse that the poll above did included them as "other candidate" - Horse Hockey.

They asked voters to name what candidate they support. These are the only 3 R's that were higher than single digits. All other Republican candidates COMBINED were less that 5% total. I know the Behney campaign pays you (or promises to) to peddle these silly arguments and smears, but how stupid do you expect the voters to be?

 

[melensdad]

These attacks on Behney, show that there is more to his campaign than the polls show - otherwise the Hostettler folks wouldn't be so hot and bothered for him to drop out. They'd be targeting Stutzman where there is a larger percentage.

I have yet to see anyone attack Behney? Who is attacking Behney?

Behney is getting no media. Behney has no name recognition. Behney is nothing more than a statistical blip. But the few votes he has are likely taken from one of the other conservatives and consequently help Dan Coats.

For the good of the conservative movement it makes sense to marshall the conservatives behind one candidate. It makes most sense to support the candidate with the best polling numbers and largest support group. Splitting up the conservative movement into 4 subgroups is certainly a great way to get Dan Coats elected.

And from the conservative standpoint, Coats actually has great credentials on many issues. He just sucks on several. But he's been ranked as one of the most economic conservatives ever based on his voting history when he was last in the Senate. But he is not a consistent conservative on all issues and is going to throw gun owners under the bus. Best chance we have is stop him at the primary level by getting behind one of the other candidates.

Fact is that Behney is not that candidate and has NO chance of winning.

 

[photoshooter]

They asked voters to name what candidate they support.

I was speaking of the Rassmussen poll that you had quoted. Sorry if I didn't clarify that. Take a look at the numbers from the that poll:

Edit: Was going to include the table, but it doesn't reproduce well. Please click the link above.

But here's the info in context:
Coats vs Elsworth: 49+34+6+12 = 101%
Hostettler vs Elsworth: 50+32+4+15=101%

That shows a question specifically geared to "Do you support ______ or Ellsworth?"

If it were an open ended "Who do you support?", no candidate would be at 49 or 50%.

These are the only 3 R's that were higher than single digits. All other Republican candidates COMBINED were less that 5% total. I know the Behney campaign pays you (or promises to) to peddle these silly arguments and smears, but how stupid do you expect the voters to be?

Again, this is not accurate, because of the way the questioning was structured. Since they didn't publish the actual question, we can only look at the numbers. If the candidates each get 50%, they're questioning specifically based on two person match ups - and they left TWO candidates completely out of the loop.

EDITED TO ADD:
Quote from the article by Rassmussen:

In all three match-ups, roughly five percent (5%) of Indiana voters prefer some other candidate.