You are here: Home / Archives for Hack

Polling Fun

March 10, 2010 By 9 Comments

It is tempting by many campaigns to put out public polling claiming their guy is in the lead and touting his or her strength. For the second time in a month, Summit Consulting Group has put out a poll touting the strength of State Senator Jim Waring.

Now I like Jim and think he’s a good guy. But he needs to distance himself from Summit’s incredibly flawed polling.

For those of you who aren’t experts on polling, let me explain. In the poll just below as was the case with the poll release around a month ago, Summit isn’t releasing a true ballot question. You can tell this because the undecideds are uncommonly low. In fact, most Congressional races develop late and rare is it that a candidate builds up any type of substantial lead until voters start paying attention.

Yet, at first glance at the press release below, you would think that Jim Waring has a commanding lead in the race. However, if you read the press release, you will see that it is only among voters who have made up their mind. This is probably around 20 to 25 percent of the voters, leaving around 70-80 percent undecided. Now in fairness to Summit, they acknowledge that.

But there is another problem.

If you read further into the press release by Summit, they claim that the poll conducted was 400 interviews with a  margin of error of +/-  5 percent. That’s fine, but the numbers they are citing for Waring only include those who have decided or about 20-30 percent of those interviewed or in other words about 80 to 90 interviews, not 400. The problem with that is that this isn’t a statistically significant number of interviews to mean anything. The margin of error for such a small sample is so large that it means nothing. You can see that in their results with both Crump and Gorman jumping around in the numbers. That is to be expected because the margin of error is so large.

If Summit wants to be taken seriously as a polling firm, then they would do well to release the entire poll and release the number of interviews included in the numbers they choose to highlight.

Finally, in an article in the Capitol Times from last month, Summit head Chad Willems mentioned that he was going to be working for Waring.  Yet in this press release there is no such mention of any relationship.  The reason this matters is that the FEC takes a very dim view of consultants and employees of a campaign doing things independently that could ostensibly be seen as beneficial to a candidate they are working for.  Now Summit may not be working for the Waring campaign, but if they are, then they should disclose it to the recipients of the press release.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Who Needs to Bother with Town Hall Meetings…

August 24, 2009 By 2 Comments

…when you have the Arizona Republic working for you?

Arizona Republic assistant editorial page editor Robert Leger’s post on one constituent’s efforts to actually meet with Congressman Harry Mitchell says it all.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Fun with Budget Negotiations

June 16, 2009 By 1 Comment

The latest gambit in Governor Brewer’s increasingly strained negotiations with the Legislature is a lawsuit she intends to file today forcing the Legislature to send her the recently passed budget that she will presumably veto in an attempt to start the process over with less than three weeks to go.  

The Governor has backed off on her insistence that the FY’10 budget include a tax increase and is now calling for legislation to put the tax increase on the ballot at some time in the future.  I suppose that’s a logical negotiating position on her part – “I’ll give you a no tax increase budget for FY’10, if you give me the tax increase vote in return.”

One problem.  

How does it pass the Legislature?

In theory, you have two somewhat realistic options to pass it in both chambers.  

First, you convince Republican legislators that this isn’t really a tax increase, just a vote to give voters a choice.  You then hope that the desire to finish this marathon legislative session outweighs the reluctance to vote for the tax increase.  Odds of this happening – probably slim and none.  

Second, you try and convince Democrats to provide a large majority of the votes and then try to pick off and/or buy Republican votes to get yourself a majority.  Odds of this happening – slightly better, but it would fly in the face of strong Democrat opposition to the sales tax and their desire for something with a little more, shall we say, oomph in the tax department.  It also assumes that there are enough Republican yes votes, something that is by no means guaranteed.  

This is probably why the Governor wants the budget bills.  Vetoing them serves her purposes in both scenarios.  In scenario one, she can increase the desperation about passing a budget by vetoing these bills.  If these ones are off the table, she apparently believes she is in a stronger negotiating position as the fiscal year nears an end and Legislators come under increased pressure to strike a deal.  

In the second scenario, she is in better position to buy both Republican and Democrat votes for her tax increase if she can play a big role in the crafting of a new budget.  

Fun stuff.  Aren’t you glad you’re not a Legislator?

Filed Under: Uncategorized

An Interesting Reason to Get Rid of Clean Elections

June 12, 2009 By 25 Comments

This coming Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to take up a proposal by Senator Jonathan Paton to send to the ballot a measure to get rid of Clean Elections.  

I for one, support that measure for the same reasons many do who follow politics in AZ.  I believe that the system is irreparably flawed and serves as a drag on free speech.  I also oppose the idea of using public money for political campaigns.  

But courtesy of Freshman State Senator Steve Pierce there is another reason to get rid of Clean Elections that most of us haven’t thought of.  

From Today’s Capitol Times:

“Clean Elections gives you a lesser quality of people, and I think people should have to raise their own money,” 

Lesser quality of people?

Considering that a significant amount of Senator Pierce’s colleagues have utilized Clean Elections at one point or another in their careers, one can only imagine what Senator Pierce must think about the people he serves with.  

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Haven’t We Been Through This Already?

June 5, 2009 By 7 Comments

In 2001, a so-called “businessman” from out of state showed up on the political scene claiming he wanted to run for Congress. He was replete the requisite cowboy boots and jeans – apparently out of staters think we are all a bunch of cowboys – and splashed around a lot of money to win a seat in Congress. His ties to the state were minimal at best – he had gone to college here but hadn’t lived in the state for over 20 years. That Congressman was Rick Renzi. Most political followers know the rest of the story.

Now comes news that another “businessman” is looking to do the same thing. Call it Renzi-redux if you will. Jim Ward announced he was running for Congress stating in his press release that he has traveled the district listening to residents to “get a sounding as to the viability of his candidacy” (get a sounding?). That was probably a smart move on Mr. Ward’s part, given the fact that according to property records, he’s only lived in the district and the state for a little over six months. But fair is fair, our Constitution places no resident requirements on running for Congress.

But the topic of this post isn’t really about Mr. Ward. Apparently he thinks that his long time residence in the Bay Area of California is sufficient to understand the needs and concerns of Arizonans. I’m not here to question that.

What I’m wondering is what it is about Arizona that seems to attract these types of candidacies from out of staters? Why do out of staters think they can come to Arizona and despite having very little connection represent our views in Congress?

Do we come off as that small time? A place where someone can show up and splash a little money and be considered a credible candidate to represent our views despite having little to no real ties to the state?

I’m curious what Sonoran Alliance readers think. Feel free to comment.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Arlen Specter’s Wild Ride

May 5, 2009 By 6 Comments

If you have been following the machinations of Senator Arlen Specter (R D-PA) over the last couple of weeks it’s hard not to wonder if he has lost his mind or he just doesn’t give a damn anymore what people think. 

Consider:

First Specter announces he is switching parties and in doing so decides not to use the tried and true excuse of that the “party left me” in explaining his decision.  Instead he very candidly observes that he’s switching solely because he can’t win a Republican Primary.  Or in other words to the Democrats – “I can’t get my own party to support me, so will you guys help out?

Then we have his comments on the Sunday talk shows where he states very plainly that if Jack Kemp would still be alive today if Congress had only spent more on cancer research – a very crass and tasteless way to make a political point.  

But Arlen wasn’t done with using cancer for political purposes.  Yesterday there was a story about an Arlen Specter website called Specter for the Cure where any reasonable person would think they are giving to a charity fighting cancer when in reality they are contributing to Specter’s reelection campaign.  

Finally, we have a report today from the New York Times that Specter believes that the Courts should award the Minnesota Senate Seat to Republican Norm Coleman.  Now, I happen to agree with Specter on this, but one wonders if this is the right move to make when you just switched to the Democratic Party.  Especially considering that the last thing you want to do is upset the liberal base of your new party when you are trying to avoid a primary.  Well, it only took a short time until the crazies over at the Daily Kos were inflamed by Specter’s comments and calling for his head.  

He’s your problem now Democrats.  

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections

Do You Dance with the One Who Brung You?

April 4, 2009 By 5 Comments

Mesa Police Chief George Gascon spent Thursday testifying before a congressional committee purportedly investigating the 287(g) program, but seen by many as conducting a show hearing on Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Now it’s no secret that Gascon is no big fan of Arpaio.  Prior to the hearings and today’s article in the East Valley Tribune, I was willing to accept Gascon’s dislike of Arpaio at face value.  Perhaps he did have real objections with Arpaio’s decision to conduct raids in Mesa without what Gascon felt was proper notification.  I may not have agreed with it, but it was a fair contention.

However, today’s article should be cause for concern for any Mesa resident – of which I am not – who is concerned about the illegal immigration that has gripped many parts of their city.

In the article, Gascon is asked by Congressman Ted Poe who paid for Gascon’s trip to DC.  Now for those of you unfamiliar with Poe, he was a no nonsense judge in Harris County Texas prior to being elected to Congress.  He had a reputation for not suffering fools lightly.  And he lived up to that reputation with Gascon.

Who paid your way to get here today?” Poe asked. Gascón replied by repeating the question.

“You heard me,” Poe said. “Who paid your way?”

“A group of nonprofit organizations that are seeking immigration reform,” Gascón answered.

“Would you agree with the statement that we dance with the one who brung us?” Poe said, suggesting that Gascón was essentially paid for his testimony.

The police chief bristled at Poe’s comment, reciting his military service and long law enforcement career.

“I don’t dance with anyone,” Gascón replied.

Really George?  Now maybe your motives are pure.  But letting a bunch of immigration reform groups pay your way out here to participate in a show hearing attacking the Sheriff of the County you live in strikes me as perhaps not the smartest thing to do.  Should a municipal employee charged with enforcing the law really be seen as being in the bag with groups that have made it clear they aren’t real high on the idea of enforcing certain laws?

Now George’s motive may in fact be pure.  But why bring them into question when you are the Chief of Police of a city that has suffered more from the problems of illegal immigration than probably almost any other city in the Valley?

Heaven help the citizens of Mesa if Gascon really is more of an apologist for illegal immigration than a Chief of Police committed to enforcing immigration laws.  I believe the jury is out on that right now, if only because of Gascon’s inexplicable decision to apparently dance with the ones who brought him.

Filed Under: Illegal Aliens, Illegal Employment, Illegal Immigration

Fun With Polling

March 31, 2009 By 6 Comments

Polling is a tricky thing.

The average person may think it is as simple as finding a question and asking it.  It’s not and that’s why most reputable pollsters have a combination of education and/or experience that give them the background to do the job right.  Most people would be surprised at how easy it is a change the wording of a question in subtle ways to get an answer you want.  It’s why every now and then you see polling results that purport to represent the feelings of the electorate that may make you shake your head in wonder.

Interest groups realize this and that’s why they will often work in conjunction with a pollster to craft questions that they feel will have a reasonble likelihood of giving them the answer they want. You simply throw in options in the question that you know people like to gin up support for your issue.  I tend to call this “PR polling.”

For example – Let’s say you were behind an effort to raise gas taxes by 25 percent.  Now common sense tells you that most people would oppose that.  So you don’t ask the question “Would you support raising gas taxes by 25 percent to build more roads”  You don’t need a poll to know the answer to that one.  Instead you conjure up something like this:

“Would support raising gas taxes 25 percent if it would reduce your commute by 75 percent and allow you to spend more time with your family?”

I suspect the results on that question would be quite different.

Which brings me to the recent poll conducted by Margaret Kenski and High Ground and just released by the AZ GOP today.  The press release purports to say that Arizona voters support increasing taxes.

Here is the question asked by Kenski, who by the way is a very reputable pollster.

“I’d like to ask you how acceptable or unacceptable you find the following measures which would be considered in addition to spending cuts in order to preserve critical education and public health funding while the economy begins to recover. These taxes would be in the form of a constitutionally limited tax that would last for no more than three years and would automatically be eliminated without another public vote.

Let’s assume for the purposes of these questions that the Legislature and the Governor have already cut nearly $1 billion dollars in State spending by 2010, used all of the federal stimulus funds to balance the budget and still have a billion dollar per year budget deficit. All of the funds raised from these taxes would be dedicated towards maintaining 2010 spending levels for K-12 education, universities, community colleges, and health care for the poor. Each of the following measures would raise approximately a billion dollars per year.”

I’ve highlighted some of the “sweeteners” included in the question to ensure the answer they want.  First we have “critical”  This is in there for one reason – to scare people.  It’s a word that when used before education and public health implies an emergency situation.  Not, mind you an emergency situation in government terms, but an emergency situation in real terms – IE if we don’t do this then our schools will close and people will die.

Second, we have “while the economy begins to recover.” this at first blush may seem extraneous to the question, but it’s not.  It’s there to say “hey things will get better soon so this wont be so bad.” because people don’t like higher taxes in tough economic times.

Finally, we have the all time favorite term to use when you want to gin up support for something – “education” and the “poor”.  After all who wouldn’t want to support our kids and those less fortunate than us.  So these terms are used in the question.  Now I am not saying they shouldn’t be used for descriptive purposes, but ask yourself, why didn’t the question just say “education and healthcare” instead of “K-12 education, universities, community colleges, and healthcare for the poor.”  The answer is simple, by listing all of these things you are attempting to touch in some way the respondent.  They may not have a child in school, but maybe they care a lot about a community college or a university.  Same thing with the healthcare question.

Now if you really wanted to find out what the citizens of Arizona feel about how to deal with the budget situation, you would probably ask the following and you would probably get a much different answer.

“Some people say that we need to raise taxes to balance our state budget so that we can limit budget cuts for government services like education and healthcare, others say that we should reduce government spending to balance the state budget.

“which position is closer to your view?”

I suspect we would get much different results.

Filed Under: Polls

Trust Us…Photo Radar is All About Driver Safety!

March 2, 2009 By 3 Comments

Yeah Right.

For those readers who had any lingering doubt about the real reasons we have photo radar, I direct you to a brief article in the Tribune.  

Redflex, the real winner in the photo radar scam, sent a lobbyist and count ‘em two PR people down to the Tribune to defend photo radar.  

One senses that RedFlex is going to spare no expense protecting it’s cash cow from legislative and citizen efforts to reign in photo radar.  

But hey that’s okay…after all it’s all about driver safety.  

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Whither Clean Elections?

January 28, 2009 By 7 Comments

Word from the Capitol is that Clean Elections has hired powerhouse lobbyist Mike Williams to lobby for a proposal to give every candidate seeking public financing the maximum amount of money.  This is, of course, in response to the court decision invalidating the matching funds provision of the Clean Elections Act.  To their credit, Clean Elections realizes that without matching funds or a change in the law to give candidates seeking public financing the maximum amount which in the case of the State Legislative races would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $55,000 or so, Clean Elections will effectively cease to exist as a credible means to run a campaign.  

However, the likelihood of getting the requisite 75 percent necessary to make changes in the law is all but a non-starter at the Capitol.  Why would any Legislator who does not use public financing vote to give their potential opponents $55,000?  Money that would, if races from recent years are any indication, be used to attack them.  That answer is that they wouldn’t.  Furthermore, giving every candidate the max would require any candidate choosing not to use public financing to work that much harder to raise money.  

In addition, there is an argument to be made that giving all candidates the max would in effect compel even more candidates to use public financing.  If you were guaranteed upwards of a $100,000 for the primary and the general, you would have no choice with our low donation limits but to use public financing.  

The more likely outcome, pending a reprieve from the 9th circuit, is that Clean Elections will cease to exist as a realistic funding source for any credible candidate and slowly whither away.  

And for those who oppose the concept of using public money to finance political campaigns, it won’t come fast enough.  

Filed Under: Campaign Finance

So Democrats What is the Alternative?

January 28, 2009 By 10 Comments

Anyone who has been following the efforts to close the budget gap will have seen the Democrats and their liberal allies pushing their attacks on Republicans for the inevitable spending cuts that are necessary to close the gap.  Of course, it wouldn’t take a political genius to foresee that these attacks would focus almost exclusively on possible cuts in education.  This is smart politics and it plays well in the press.

Strangely missing though is a credible alternative from the Democrats.  Their proposal of borrowing and budget gimmicks can and should be a non-starter.  These tricks come straight from our former Governor’s playbook and are frankly a direct contributor the situation we face today.  In essence their proposal of putting off payments until the next budget cycle in hopes of an upturn are nothing more than robbing Peter to pay Paul or in other words – a Ponzi Scheme.  And like all Ponzi schemes it will collapse.

The simple fact is that there are only two ways to fix the budget problem.

Cut spending or raise taxes.

Republicans in the Legislature and Governor Brewer correctly understand that raising taxes in a tough economy will lead to more economic pain for Arizona citizens and business.  Pain that in a declining job market is the last thing anyone needs.

So if raising taxes is a non-starter – not even Democrats with the exception of their new liberal State Chairman are proposing that – then the question becomes what to do?

The only answer is to cut spending, and as Democrats and their allies know, voter mandated spending is off the table.  That of course leaves education squarely in the crosshairs.

It’s easy when you are in the minority to take a shot at the majority who will have to make hard choices.  And politically, that is what the Democrats should and are doing.  But once you get past the politics, the question still remains.

What is the alternative?

Filed Under: Spending, State Budget, Taxation

Some Thoughts on SA

August 20, 2008 By 19 Comments

I have watched for some time now the relentless back and forth on SA by commenters. As we have gotten closer to Election Day, the vitriol increases and the attacks intensify. While I most certainly agree with the old adage – “politics ain’t beanbag”, the tone has become quite disturbing.

Over the last couple of months, the tone of SA has morphed from a discussion of issues and the political races of the day, to flat out blood sport between competing camps in comments that are almost without fail done anonymously. Now while I respect anonymity and the right to have your comments be heard, it can be abused when posters publish comments that they most certainly would not want to be associated with their names.

The practical effect of all this is that the comment section, while immensely entertaining at times, has morphed into what one particularly insightful commenter called the wall of a bathroom stall where competing gangs exchange taunts and words they wouldn’t probably say to someone’s face. We have attacks on candidates’ families, vicious and sometimes borderline slanderous attacks on people running for office, and sometimes flat out lies about candidates.

Now some might say that candidates ask for this when they run for office and use that as justification for the attacks. Some might also say that candidates attack each other all the time, in some cases much worse than goes on in the blogs. But there is a big difference. No anonymity. Candidates that attack each other have to put their names on the mailers, radio ads, phone calls, etc. Even the attack on Russell Pearce which I found abhorrent, was not done anonymously. There is a big difference. At least the candidates know who’s throwing the punches and voters can make an informed decision with that knowledge. In contrast, the comment section of this blog has become increasingly angry and vicious with a no holds barred attitude in attacking candidates and its done with a litany of made up names.

Never forget that each and every candidate for public office is doing something noble that should have our respect and admiration – they are running for public office. It’s the very foundation of our democracy.

What distinguishes SA from most other conservative blogs in this state is that it allows a diversity of writers, ideas, and opinions to be posted. Most, if not all of the other conservative blogs in this state are the opinion of one or two people and that’s it. Many routinely censor and moderate comments and don’t allow comments that disagree with their particular world view. In fact, one blog even took SA for task for not adhering religiously to that particular blogger’s view of how things should be done. That blogger just doesn’t get it and never will get what SA is all about. At its very base, it is a place to post ideas and thoughts about issues and politics and share those with others – not a place to censor views and opinions.

With that said, however, that freedom is being abused by some and while I most certainly respect your right to say whatever you want, whenever you want, no matter how offensive or stupid it may be, it would help going forward to maybe show a little decency towards the candidates running for office and at minimum have the courage if you are going to make an attack to use your real name and if that is not an option, follow the adage of the commenter mentioned above and not turn the comment section of SA into the wall of a toilet stall.

Filed Under: Blogs

This About Sums It Up

May 25, 2007 By 1 Comment

Filed Under: Illegal Immigration

National Review Editorial on Immigration Bill

May 24, 2007 By 2 Comments

The National Review has a terrific editorial on the Immigration Bill titled “It’s Worse Than You Think.”

“The immigration bill, according to its critics, hands out amnesty to illegal immigrants as soon as some ineffectual steps toward enforcement are taken. Don’t believe it. The bill provides amnesty as soon as it is enacted.”

You can read the rest here

Filed Under: Illegal Immigration, Uncategorized

Elections Have Consequences

May 16, 2007 By Leave a Comment

And we are seeing that adage played out in the budget battles down at the Legislature.

This afternoon, I watched the debate in the Senate over their bipartisan budget bill that includes next to no tax relief. Immediately after the main appropriations bill passed, I saw liberal Republican Senator Carolyn Allen go over and enthusiastically shake hands with Democrat Senator Albert Hale.

That serves as a good symbol for where things stand today for conservatives in the Arizona Legislature. Losses in both the House and Senate last year have put conservatives in the position of having no real say over the budget process.

The reality today is that those losses have effectively given liberal Republicans like Carolyn Allen, Tom O’Halleran, Pete Hershberger, and Jennifer Burns quite of bit of control over the budget in the Legislature at conservatives’ expense.

Perhaps what is going on with the budget bills will at long last send a message to Republicans that the failure to do whats necessary to protect and build your majorities will come back to bite you later on. That biting is going on now.

Filed Under: Government, Uncategorized

Maybe We Should Rename All Government Departments

May 16, 2007 By 1 Comment

Todd Lang, Executive Director of the So-Called “Clean Elections” Commission was quoted today in the Tribune as objecting the Arizona Senate’s amendment to rename the Clean Elections Act the “Publicly Funded Elections Act.” Lang’s reasoning for his objection is that he believes this is a step towards repealing the Act. Lang also said that voters would be less inclined to support the Clean Elections Commission if they see it as “just another expense of tax dollars.”

It’s interesting that Lang is so nervous about what would happen if voters were given a clearer picture that their tax dollars are being spent on campaigns. You would think the Commission would have more confidence in their own mission. But then again, they probably know better than most that the idea of using tax dollars to finance political campaigns is not the most popular proposition.

In any event, Lang’s opposition to renaming the Committee to more accurately reflect it’s mission got me thinking. The Clean Elections Commission has the best deal in government, it has a name whose sole purpose is to confuse and obfuscate it’s true mission and instead make people feel good about what the Commission does. In the interest of fairness to other government agencies, maybe we should give each agency in Arizona government the opportunity to come up with a new name to help taxpayers feel good about their missions.

In the spirit of helpfulness, I have come up with a couple of suggestions.

Change the Department of Education to “Department of Making Your Kids Smart”

Change the Department of Transportation to “The Department of No More Traffic”
Any other suggestions?

Filed Under: Government, Uncategorized

The Road Ahead in CD1

April 27, 2007 By 5 Comments

There is a report today in the Phoenix Business Journal that furthers speculation that Congressman Rick Renzi’s days in Congress may very well be numbered. While I won’t rehash recent coverage about Renzi’s problems, suffice to say that it’s looking increasingly likely that there will be a special election some time in the next 6-10 months.

So it’s not surprising then that the speculation has begun about who is considering running on the Republican side. Here is a brief review and the Hack’s opinion on who is considering running and what their strengths and weaknesses are.

Top Tier Candidates

Former Senate President Ken Bennett

Bennett seems like a logical choice for this seat. He has a good base in Yavapai County, and he is LDS which should help him with conservative LDS Democrats in the NE portion of the district. Potential weaknesses may include unfounded claims that he exerted political influence in his son’s legal cases, and the same question every candidate will have to answer – can they raise enough money to be competitive in what should be a very expensive race.

State Rep. Bill Konopnicki

Before everyone posts comments on how Konopnicki is too liberal to win a primary (and maybe he is), keep in mind that Konopnicki always runs very strong in his legislative district. Konopnicki is not only LDS, but he has routinely won the swing areas of this district in his Legislative races. Konopnicki is also wealthy and could conceivably finance a big chunk of his campaign.

Potential weaknesses include the fact that he is seen as one of the most liberal Republican members of the Arizona Legislature which could make getting through a primary tough. He also has rubbed some of his Republican colleagues in the Legislature the wrong way with his willingness to occasionally plot with Democrats (the 2004 budget is just one example).

Rancher Steve Pierce

Pierce is a wealthy rancher who was the chairman of the Yavapai County Republican Party. He is well-liked in Yavapai and considered a good conservative. He is also close to Kyl, Shadegg, and Flake. Pierce could also afford to self-finance his campaign.

Pierce’s most obvious weakness is that he is relatively unknown to voters. Though, in fairness, if Pierce were to write a big check, that could be overcome relatively easiliy.

Other Potential Candidates

Senator Tom O’Halleran

Probably not going to happen for the liberal Republican State Senator. He represents Yavapai, but it’s likely there will be another conservative candidate from Yavapai County who will be in a position to take the bulk of GOP votes out of the County. O’Halleran doesn’t have much to offer to primary voters in this race. It would also be tough for O’Halleran to raise the kind of money to be competitive.

Lobbyist Sydney Hay

Hay ran and finished a close third in the 2002 Republican Primary for this seat. Word is that she is calling around to feel out her prospects on this race and would like to run. She is conservative and well-liked by conservative activists. She is also a good campaigner and able to articulate the issues.

However, it’s well-known that she does not live in the district, and it’s unlikely that the voters would accept another carpetbagger. In addition, Hay is a lobbyist. Now, in fairness, she generally lobbies for conservative causes, but that distinction will very likely get lost in a race like this, and being a lobbyist running for Congress is probably not the right profile to have in a race like this. Also, it’s unlikely that Hay could raise the kind of money necessary to be competitive in this race.

The Hack’s Take

The price of entry to be taken seriously in this race is going to be high. That immediately put’s potential self-funders like Pierce and Konopnicki into the top-tier. Bennett belongs with these two because he could conceivably put some of his own money into the race and would be able to raise money. He also has a good base from which to run in a primary and a lot of goodwill to tap into. In the end, I think it’s an either or situation for Pierce and Bennett. Both don’t get into the race. Whoever does would probably become the favorite. Konopnicki may flinch because our resign to run law would very likely require him to leave the Legislature. If he does run, he could win if he were able to do well in his legislative district and self-fund a big chunk of his race. O’Halleran and Hay are likely non-starters. They may run, but I think neither would be able to compete with the top-tier candidates.

Now fire away!!!

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections
« Older Posts