The latest polling from KAET’s Cronkite Eight project has Pederson within 6 points of Kyl. Kyl is 4 points shy of an absolute majority, and there are 9% undecided – more than enough to close the gap for Pederson. We have a competitive race, folks. If Pederson can hammer Kyl more effectively over the home stretch we could have a new Democratic Senator from Arizona.
The same poll has a few interesting and encouraging data points on other contests. It is showing the latest crazy embarrassing blow-out numbers for the Governor’s race. Apparently, Arizona really doesn’t want a Governor whose major policy theme seems to be to tear down the 9/11 memorial because it’s not politically correct enough. Go figure.
Finally, a bit of good news (amid a lot of bad) on the Proposition front. The poll indicates that voters are understanding the threat to families that Proposition 107 represents (despite the best efforts of the fascists – whose ranks Senator McCain has joined by appearing on a Pro-Prop 107 mailer "wholeheartedly" endorsing this gay-bashing, non-trad family trashing bullshit). 107 looks set to go down hard.
UPDATE: I’ve been reminded that the language of the question asked in this poll might have over-determined the result a bit:
"Proposition 107 will amend the Arizona constitution to ban same-sex
marriages and would bar governmental entities such as cities, counties,
school districts and universities from providing employee benefits to
unmarried partners. Will you vote for or against this proposition?"
Could be that the assessment of the effect skewed the results. Certainly, previous polling indicates that 107 fails when fully explained, and wins when framed as simply being a ban on gay marriage or "one man one woman" nonsense.
Just a little process note: please leave a comment letting me know if you’re liking the new statistical graphics. Something new I’m trying.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The GIFFORDS FAMILY TRUST of which Gabriell Giffords is an heir is getting money from the city of Tucson, $160,000 dollars a year for 50 years for an old El Campo Tire store that had been contaminated by asbestos and leaking gas tanks. The close to 15 million dollar deal is something that I have not heard about in the past but did hear of the fact she Giffords sold the land so as to not have to pay the Government for the EPA clean-up now dumped on the City of Tucson taxpayers.
To donate a leading edge of the Giffords property for a right of way to Tucson City streets is smoke and mirrors, because I have never heard of The City asking for a donation of a right of way they just take 75 foot on each side as planned buy the Pima County Planning and Zoning commission.
We now know why Giffords said she would spend 5 million dollars to get elected because its your money folks!
Terry Goddard’s Father owned East Lawn Cemetery in the 1960’s and I Campaigned for his Father for Governor as Terry was a teenager running around in front of his dads podium os he campaigned.
My Family just Opened Brings Broadway Chapel at Broadway and Kolb in 1965 and wanted to by East Lawn Cemetery from Goddard. He would NOT sell it to us because we were NOT Catholics. The Goddards sold it to Reg Morrison a former Pima County Board of Supervisor. We went to Regs house and wanted to buy it from him in 1970 but he still held the same though ; Not Being Catholic. My Family Now sits on the Board of Directors of Corondelete St. Marys and St. Josephs Hospitals and as you enter the FRONT DOOR of both Hospitals next to JIM CLICKS NAME look on the wall as in GOLD LETTERING IS MY Sister In Laws NAME SUSAN J. BRING. We serve all faiths at Brings Funeral Homes INC. at all of our locations and are looking to open a Cemetery soon also that most likely will surprize everyone in Southern Arizona.
If you might give me one more place to post a comment about this whole Giffords THING ; then I will shut UP; this has really gotten my dander up; because I am fed up with LIARS and CHEATS who represent themselves as someone taking advantage of a situation when in fact they ARE NOT WHO YOU THINK THEY ARE; as Giffords changed Party Affiliation in 2001 from Republican to Democrat to run for The State Senate; Iam surprized she did NOT change BACK to being a Republican to run for CONGRESS!!! But I forgot Mike loves to support Republicans or past Republicans for Democratic Seats in Congress over long standing Democratic Party Members who put this State and Town on the map; coming to Tucson in 1910 before it was a State as a DEMOCRAT THEN AND NOW MY FAMILY HAS NOT PLAYED HOPSCOTCH WITH CHANGING PARTIES TO BENIFIT OURSELVES NOT YOU THE VOTER;
We are a THIRD GENERATION BUSINESS STILL IN BUSINESS TODAY in Tucson and did not COP OUT AND SELL OUT BEFORE FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY as did both Giffords and Peterson to avoid paying the EPA enviornmental Clean Up Charges for Violations on the Property from leaking underground gas tanks!
Do I actually sound like I am anti-graphs? I am a scientist and rely on them intensely in my work. I love the things. I am making the point that the people who produce the ones that are most consumed by the public are the ones who do it the worst. A good fair graph doesn’t need dressing up, that is all.
Flounder,
You make a good point about lying (intentionally or not) through statistical representation, but that’s been around for years. If you choose a good, fair graphic it enhances rather than harms.
I was surpised by the polling on 107 also. But hasn’t there been an influx of Californians in recent years because of the housing market difference between here and there, making Arizona a little bit more “purple”? Maybe if we all work just a bit harder we can oust BOTH Kyl and Hayworth. It seems to be getting close enough that there is hope!
“The important thing about numbers is to make it as easy as possible for people who are numbers-challenged to understand and appreciate the meaning. Graphs, bar charts – all those visual representations make numberical concepts more accessible to readers. Purists can always go to the sources of the data.”
This is exactly what Tufte is all about. I would argue that your average USA Today reader is among the the more numbers challenged people who still actually read newspapers. But what do you see when you look at one of their graphs? Cutesy unicorns and explosions graphics. One thing they are famous for: say one candidate is beating another 47-44. They will graph it on a scale from 40 to 50. That makes the margin between the two on a block graph some 30% in size (assuming they didn’t screw it up from a volume standpoint, which happens). Now they argue that they are plotting at this small scale to highlight the contrast for the “numbers challenged.” Plotting on a 0 to 100 scale would indicate to this “number challenged” person that ‘gee this poll is really close.’
Who has the more truthful concept and is being more helpful here at trying to show a really close race? Btw, Many media outlets did this graphically with Bush and Kerry. Visually, on a small scale you can make it look like Bush kicked Kerry’s butt. To this day we live with outbursts of the “mandate” meme from a 2% election.
3-d oblique views slightly misrepresent volumes and distort the mental image one draws. are they as bad as a poorly scaled graph? No but they are on that road.
I was so encouraged to read about the new Cronkite/Eight poll showing only 30% of people asked were voting “for” the Proposition 107. Unfortunately, my elation was tempered quite a bit when I read the results to another poll done by NAU last week on Proposition 107, which showed the measure passing 51% to 42%. According to the publication I read, the difference was in the wording of the poll question. The actual wording that is going to appear on the ballot measure was used in the NAU poll, whereas the Cronkite/Eight poll question was worded this way: “the measure would not only ban same-sex marriage, but bar cities, counties, school districts and universities from providing benefits to partners of unmarried employees.”
This is discouraging in that it seems to indicate that Arizonans want to ban gay marriage, they just don’t want to deny benefits from couples – gay or straight.
*sigh* I guess I will not let my hopes get too high…
Charts, graphs and tables are just different ways to represent data. They are designed to make it easier to see data in a glance. They all can be manipulated to skew the look of the data.
I am shocked at the results of the polls on 107. Maybe, just maybe it means that the voters in this state are more reasonable than previously shown (ie Graf winning the republican primary, the nut-jobs that win reelection in the east valley)
There is hope for Arizona yet!
In re graphics: Confucious say one picture worth 10,000 words. Confucious very smart!
The important thing about numbers is to make it as easy as possible for people who are numbers-challenged to understand and appreciate the meaning. Graphs, bar charts – all those visual representations make numberical concepts more accessible to readers. Purists can always go to the sources of the data.
For the record, I’ve read the Tufte book, and I diesagree with him on this matter.
I like the new graphics. As long as they don’t get so cluttered as to detract from getting at the actual data (which they don’t), then having something that looks nice (which they do) can only help with the presentation.
You should find this book and browse through it.
http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/books_vdqi
In short the flashy 3-d stuff is known as “chart junk” and disrespects your readers ability to see the data for itself. The Tufte book is considered on of the top 100 non-fiction works of the 20th Century by the way.