Most Arizona’s will vote for McCain but think Obama will win

We do not understand it either but you can read the latest KAET/Cronkite poll for yourself.


Comments

  1. What is so difficult to understand? Many Arizona voters may vote for favorite son McCain while understanding that he’s only the favorite son here in AZ, not the rest of the country.

  2. Monday, February 11th DSW said: http://sonoranalliance.com/?p=2016

  3. Just Win Baby says

    What is not to understand? They will vote for McCain here in Arizona but believe that Obama will win the presidency. He can do that without winning Arizona, you know?

  4. Since McCain only carried 47% of Arizona in the Presidential preference, his amnesty and open borders policies hurt him in this border state. I will be surprised if mccain even carries Arizona. Even IND’s want secure borders and are not fooled by mccain’s amnesty plans. Since amnesty is coming with any of the current presidential choices, may as well let the dem do it.

  5. Antifederalist says

    I’d wager that the presidential election is going to be a replay of Dole vs. Clinton and the 2006 election: Dems are enthused and conservatives are going to sit this one out. Just like Clinton beat Dole in Arizona, Obama is gonna beat McCain both in Arizona and nationally. We conservatives repeatedly warned the party that if a conservative was not chosen, we’d sit out yet another election. Republicans, prepare for further defeats until you start noiminating REAL, small-government conservatives. Enjoy losing, moderate Rs.

  6. nightcrawler says

    Antifederalist,

    Would you care to explain your choice of name ? I believe you are confused.

  7. Antifederalist says

    Nightcrawler,
    I don’t think I’m too confused at all. I’m am a part of the far-right crowd that is extremely mistrustful of government. To steal a quote from Grover Norquist, I believe “government should be small enough to drown in 2″ of water.” Historically, the antifederalists ran a campaign against the adoption of the constitution citing numerous concerns that the constitution gave too much power to the federal government. Additionally, after the adoption of the constitution, the Antifederalist Party, of which President Jefferson was a member, formed to prevent the expansion of federal power. Similarly, REAL conservatives, that is PALEO-conservatives (as opposed to neo-, which means NEW, conservatives, who were Dems that became Rs when Reagan crushed the leftists, and are now the moderate scumbag RINO Republicans in the White House and in Leadership positions in Congress) or classical liberals, believe in de minimis government. I am SO disgusted with the nationalization and usurpation of power by the federal government, far beyond it’s SPECIFIC and ENUMERATED constraints in Article 1, Section 8, that I entertain the idea that the Antifederalists were right: more constraints on government were necessary. So, no, I don’t think I’m confused. If I am, remind me to tell U of A I need my tuition money back.

  8. nightcrawler says

    There were two distinct Anti-Federalist movements. One prior to 1789 which unsuccessfully opposed the constitution. However, ten amendments were ratified as a result of this movement and are known as the Bill of Rights. The second Anti-Federalist movement occurred between 1789 and 1801 was more in support of the aggressive fiscal policies of Alexander Hamilton.

    The modern day interpretation of the term Federalism conjures up the notion of state’s rights shared with those of the federal government, hence my question.

    Enough of the sizzle, how about a little steak ?

    Give me some real life examples of how the government has recently nationalized and usurped power ? In in those examples how do they affect your everyday life ?

    PS Any Wildcat should be entitled to a full refund and an apology for a wasted youth. Go Devils.

  9. Antifederalist says

    Nightcrawler,
    We’re ranging far afied of the original topic: that McCain will lose the national election to Obama because Dummyrats are pumped and conservatives will sit this election out…just like 2006. I’m not sure readers really care to read every one of my opinions, nor will they.

    I maintain my original position. I believe in a federal republic with limited, enumerated powers and in states with the general police power to regulate for the health, safety, welfare, and morals of their citizens. That’s what our constitution clearly states in Article 1, Section 8, and in the 10th Amendment. If you don’t agree with that sentiment, you oppose our constitution.

    As an aside, this was probably just a typo on your part, but the Antifederalists OPPOSED Hamilton. BTW, nice “borrowing” of text from sites like Wiki and Answers.

    I’s also like to note a leftist tendency your posed questions betray. You ask for recent examples of violations of the enumerated powers, and ask how those violatons have personally affected me…betraying that you’re leading to the conclusion that if violations of the constitution don’t personally affect me, my objections are irrelevant. I utterly reject that notion. The law is the law. It is written with black letter words that have specific meanings. Violations of the law are important in and of themselves. We conservatives believe that if we don’t like the law, we go through the proper channels to change the law to our liking. On the other hand, if liberals don’t like what the law says, they twist the meaning of words (ever hear the terms “Penumbras” or “Living Document”?) or use any means necessary to achieve their objectives on a case-by-case basis: like inciting activist judges to legislate from the bench. See http://www.mises.org/story/2335 for an additional source. The conservative approach fosters certainty and clarity and encourages economic growth, while the liberal approach creates uncertainty, chaos, and stiffles our economy. To me, the liberal approach is akin to treason for threatening our global supremacy.

    Now, still knowing that I hold everyone to the left of de minimis government Republicans in utter contempt, if you want to continue this discussion with me, off the boards, give me some way to contact you and I’ll answer your questions directly with no holds barred.

  10. nightcrawler says

    I agree, let us stay on topic.

    I am not stating that your objections are irrelevant, but if you can’t even cite one example of how your life has been affected, your objections are academic. So why all the angst ?

    You are chasing ghosts. You need to look around and see the changing demographics. There will not be that many more bites at the apple for the GOP. If you sit this election out “to teach the RINOs a lesson” can you be so sure that the next cycle won’t last for forty years ? I know a lot of blowhards try to draw a parallel to Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. Reagan prospered at the hands of a Carter victory. Short term pain for long term gain. That argument is flawed. Obama is no Carter. Once you let the Genie out of the bottle, there is no putting him back. He will energize the Democrats and young people like no other. He is picking up new voters, which we have not.

    I am happy to discuss/debate with you anytime in any venue. The blogs are meant for exchanges much like ours. The ideas matter, not the personalities.

Leave a Reply