Posted on 10/26/2010 9:52:47 PM PDT by iowamark
Iowans are evenly split on whether to retain three Iowa Supreme Court justices with “no” voters exhibiting more intensity, according to a poll released Oct. 25.
A recent poll conducted by NRG Research Group for Shaw & Company Research indicates also found the race for attorney general to be tight.
The poll of 309 registered voters found 36 percent saying they will vote to re-elect the justices and 35 percent saying they will not.
“These numbers track reasonably well with opposition to the Iowa Court’s decision to strike down legislation banning gay marriage,” pollster Daron Shaw of Shaw & Company Research said. “The retention elections are closer than one would typically expect, and while there are lots of undecided voters there seems to be greater intensity on the ‘no’ side of the fight.”
An Iowa Poll three weeks ago showed those seeking to oust the justices were trailing by four points, Shaw said, who teaches American government at the University of Texas at Austin. The NRG poll, conducted Oct. 20-21, found the gap has narrowed to essentially a dead heat. The poll has a margin of error of approximately 5 percent, Shaw said.
NRG did not ask a separate question on each justice who will be on the ballot. Shaw said voters are likely to vote the same way on all three.
He did note the justices’ favorable to unfavorable ratings are not encouraging for those who support retention. Chief Justice Marsha Ternus, for example, is seen favorably by 17 percent and unfavorably by 11 percent. Typically, a candidate wants favorable to be at least twice her unfavorable.
He also found Democratic Attorney General Tom Miller leading his Republican challenger, Brenna Findley, 38 percent to 36 percent, which is well within the poll’s margin of error.
In the governor’s race, four-term Gov. Terry Branstad led incumbent Democrat Gov. Chet Culver 45 percent to 36 percent.
Shaw said the demographics and political attitudes of the poll closely match those of recent Iowa mid-term elections with 52 percent of respondents being female and 48 percent male, 32 percent being 65 or older and 29 percent under the age of 45, and 29 percent Republican and 28 percent Democrat.
After that jirclecirk in San Fernasco today with the old Arizona retard as the pivot woman, I’ve decided to vote ‘NO’ for every “judge” from now until the day I die. I know, that sounds stupid and I’ll be punishing “good” judges but I don’t care. ALL “JUDGES” ARE MORONS IN MY EYES NOW. They hate America, they hate our Constitution and Bill or Rights and they hate me. They can all KMA!
They’ve got Branstad up only 45-36 over Culver and didn’t even bother to poll Grassley-Conlin. It’s going to be a Terry & Chuck lead rout in Iowa. Things are much better than this poll shows, the judges are going down!
BUMP what you said, except I would do the research and keep good judges who respect and defend the Constitution and eject with extreme prejudice any scumbag judge who unilaterally “rules” to overturn the vote of a majority of the citizens. The scumbag judges who do that can go to hell.
I wish every judge faced regular retention votes.
The only time I’ve ever voted yes to retain a judge was this one in Cape Girardeau with the last name of Limbaugh.
I am REALLY PO’d at what those scumbags at the 9th Circus did today. There needs to be an investigation and somebody needs to be thrown in jail. The timing of this “judicial” fiasco is suspect. Arizonans decide how they want to run this state, not a bunch of old retarded, lawyer has beens in San Francisco. Americans have lost their government, their Constitution, their Bill of Rights and their country.
That’s what I’m talkin’ about!
By “That’s what I’m talkin’ about”, I mean THAT’S WHAT I’M TALKIN’ ABOUT! :o)
Judges have become all powerful today and that alone requires changes. Regardless if they are liberal or conservative, they really need to adhere to the Constitution (and way too many have not!). That means either we the people change things or we continue to let judges change things for us.
Our time is now...
TV ads have been running the past few day to VOTE NO on retention......No ads running to keep the clowns.
Some RINOS are claiming it will “cause a court backlog” So be it.
This year we are both....... MAD AND ORGANIZED.
Good luck!
It is way past time to put the fear of God into these scumbag “men in black” who so cavalierly dismiss the wishes of literally millions of voters. Seeing even just a handful of these sick, vain mice sent packing would bring joy to my heart.
Go Iowa — vote the bastards OUT.
Oklahoma is rooting for you. (Well, I am at least.)
The court backlog could be real if many of the district court judges are not retained. It will be interesting to see if the district judges get caught in the crossfire of the Supreme Court justice retention vote. Many of the district judges are very good.
What would you do in cases where a judge overrules a majority vote that is actually unconstitutional? It does, after all, take a lot more than a majority vote to get rid of the Constitution.
No it doesn't. It takes only the whim of a handful of vain and/or corrupt judges to get rid of the Constitution. Sometimes one judge does it. It's easy, because to them the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" that serves merely as a guideline.
That's the problem.
This is a far larger issue than just about gay marriage. In Iowa, the method by which Iowa MUST choose it's justices is totally rigged to make sure that only liberal Democrat lawyers, who have made contributions to the RAT party are ever appointed to the SC.
The method MUST be changed.
You think CA was a mess after 5 months of homo-"marriage" was undone? That's nothing compared to the Iowa situation if marriage is properly defined after several years of impostor "marriage" is ensconced.
......No ads running to keep the clowns.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.