polling – Page 4 – monoblogue

Bad news for bloggers

I thought this was an interesting poll done by Rasmussen.

A poll taken by the group late last month revealed that 78% of adults surveyed see reporting by local newspapers as being at least somewhat reliable, as opposed to 66% which say the same about blogs.

Given the controversy which arises from at least one local copy-and-paste blog which does its best to copy-and-paste as much as – if not more than – the local newspaper, the results don’t surprise me.

The advantage newspapers still have over most internet providers, particularly solo and small group operations like blogs generally are, is that they have the resources to pay people to gather information. When I go to County Council meetings and certain political events as part of my first-person reporting I’ll often find mainstream news organizations like the Daily Times or local TV stations covering the event as well. Their model of selling advertising interspersed with vital information is still working, and they use some of those proceeds to pay those who gather information.

While I’m aware that some bloggers are paid in a similar manner, it seems the majority of them make their money by selling ads directly instead of having a marketing department separate from news operations. I doubt Greg Latshaw or Steve Hammond is begging for advertisers as part of the reporting.

Certainly there are people and groups who pay people to put out their own spin on the issues as well, and that information is added to the mix. For some bloggers, simply regurgitating these talking points is a good way to provide content at little time, effort, or cost to them. Obviously I often use releases as starting points for my posts but I rarely take them at face value.

Perhaps it’s those who unquestioningly take people at their word without doing the required fact checking that puts bloggers at a disadvantage in the poll. Certainly I’d like to help drive that 66% figure up along with my readership.

At its root, though, is the fact that all journalists and editors come to their jobs with some sort of bias. Needless to say, I look at things from a conservative to libertarian point of view and it affects the way I write at times. Having been a student of history I know that certain groups of people have no compunction in making things up if it suits their needs. But I strive for accuracy in the end, and even political opponents concede I usually get it right in my reporting.

Maybe if bloggers would do more to earn the respect of their journalistic peers and the general public by sticking to the facts and leaving aside rumors, innuendo, and personal attacks, they may just bring that number up to the level of support enjoyed by the traditional media.

Once upon a time in my youth I briefly worked in a retail setting, and one thing I was taught is that giving bad service to one customer will eventually drive another dozen away through the negative word-of-mouth. In this day and age of instant communication via Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking outlets getting the wrong person mad could backfire a thousandfold.

As a collection of media mavens it’s time we grow up and take more care in what we do. Very few of us make a living at this, but in order to do so we have to clean up our act and become worthy of support.

A slow reclamation

In the wake of the emotional Obamacare debate, the President’s approval ratings sank much closer to those endured by the outgoing President Bush than the stratospheric heights polled as the era of Barack began. Looking at Rasmussen’s tracking poll, Obama reached a low of 43% approval during the weekend of the final House debate over the Senate-sponsored health care measure, and the approval index (defined by Rasmussen as the percentage strongly approving minus the percentage strongly disapproving) reached a low of -21.

Since those low points, though, the emotion of the debate over health care has subsided and Obama’s approval ratings have began their own slow recovery – back to 48% approval last week and a much healthier approval index of -10. It’s an encouraging trend for a party which just last month was left for dead in November, and perhaps shows that Republicans need to curb their enthusiasm about derailing the Obama agenda next year.

Yet one has to ask just what is different about the public’s mood now. Certainly there’s still a Tea Party element out there flexing its muscle, but Obama has adroitly focused his efforts on the one area he can be seen as populist in advocating Wall Street reform. While there’s a lot of people who dislike big government, even more have a beef with the perceived fat cats who navigate the murky waters of derivatives and other difficult-to-explain financial instruments while making handsome profits for themselves and sticking taxpayers with their losses.

Then again, it’s not easy to figure out what Congress wants to do with Wall Street either. In that respect President Obama seems to be leading in the same manner as he did with health care, standing aside while Congress debates the finer points and waiting anxiously with pen in hand for the final legislation to pass. Unlike health care, though, President Obama may be waiting in vain because of the Republicans’ newfound ability to filibuster legislation – Democrats no longer have the convenient workaround they enjoyed in goosing the system and rules to pass Obamacare.

On the other hand there are still a number of boobytraps remaining before Obama and the Democrats can survive the upcoming election with their majorities intact.

Immigration is the hotbutton issue du jour, placed there once Arizona passed a get-tough measure on illegal immigrants (which ironically is simply a rewrite of federal law at a state level.) While the President has wanted to see reform with federal law, there’s a number of Democrats who are quite squeamish about touching anything which remotely resembles amnesty. They’re mindful of the reaction back home, and for good reason.

The same goes for cap-and-trade legislation, which is a nonstarter despite the continuing Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf. President Obama wasn’t able to take advantage of the situation by showing leadership; instead he’s being chastised by some in the press for his slow reaction to the crisis.

It could be, however, that the biggest difference between the more popular Obama of late and the Obama trying to get health care reform passed is that the President doesn’t seem to be the constant presence he was during that debate. With a number of other world crises taking place, such as the financial meltdown of Greece, the news isn’t quite as focused on the President and lack of familiarity stops breeding contempt.

There’s no doubt Americans aren’t necessarily buying what President Obama is selling, but the pitchman has retreated off the stage enough to keep his record out of the limelight and regain a little of his lost popularity in the process.

Michael Swartz, an architect and writer who lives in rural Maryland, is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer. This article cleared the LFS wire on May 13, which after their usual hold meant I didn’t get to post it last week.

Friday night videos episode 25

Bringing back the FNV franchise again after a week off, so let’s see what the extra week has given me to work with.

Lots of video on the health care debacle, as you might expect. Pollster Scott Rasmussen talks to the Washington News-Observer on the upcoming midterm elections and about how unpopular Obamacare really is:

It wasn’t too popular among this group either. My blogger friend Bob McCarty (who lives in that area) covered the counter-protest to President Obama’s health care show in St. Charles, Missouri.

If I didn’t put this on when it first came out, I sure missed out. This edition of FNV will be graced by the common sense of Rep. Mike Pence, perhaps my favorite member of Congress.

But the Democrats do reveal the facts about their health care bill.

Speaking of leading Democrats, in a couple weeks we’re going to see the third edition of the TEA Party Express, which begins in Searchlight, Nevada (Harry Reid’s hometown.) Mark Williams of TPX3 wanted to have a conversation with MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan but you can see how the left expresses “Anger in America.”

And if you’re interested in saddling up and heading out west, they have an interesting lineup to start their tour – wonder how many will be there for the other stops?

Let’s finish the political end of FNV with something humorous. We can laugh about this now that this half of the globe is actually warming (with a corresponding cooling on the other side – funny how that works, huh?)

Now the fun part. This comes from one of my favorite regional bands and was recorded live at the Trocadero Theater in Philadelphia (unfortunately, not by me.) Hailing from Smyrna, Delaware, this is 13:1.

If you go to their website, crank out ‘No Goodbyes.’ (Feel free to do so with their other songs if you wish, too.)

With that, we put another FNV in the books. That was fun.

Wargotz wins beauty contest

Much as a straw poll is somewhat helpful in determining grassroots support – but isn’t necessarily an indication of how an election will turn out – U.S. Senate Dr. Eric Wargotz may have proven he has the best supporters for stacking a straw poll.

My U.S. Senate poll came to a close early this morning (by prearrangement) and the final results out of over 5,000 votes are as follows:

Eric Wargotz 2,864 (56%)
Corrogan Vaughn 1,436 (28%)
Jim Rutledge 519 (10%)
John Kimble 144 (3%)
Carmen Amedori 138 (3%)
John Curran 5 (<1%)
Daniel McAndrew 5 (<1%)

Conclusions:

Eric’s campaign never stopped responding to the poll once it got underway. He led pretty much the entire way and kept increasing his percentage as other candidates and their supporters lost interest. The last time I did this (with just four candidates – Amedori hadn’t entered the race yet and I didn’t know Curran and Kimble had entered) Jim Rutledge picked up support toward the end but not this time.
I think Corrogan Vaughn’s camp exhibited the same phenomenon, as he and his supporters were probably the best at plugging the poll. But I’m hesitant to consider him as a real force in the race yet based on prior results. Even if you forget that the 2006 campaign had an all-but-annointed candidate in Michael Steele, Vaughn only drew 3.7% of the vote in 2004. Why is the support coming out now when the message didn’t sell before? Something doesn’t add up here.
Jim Rutledge has good supporters based on comments, but they didn’t stay for the whole poll. It makes me wonder if his backing is all that strong as I’ve found his campaign stays on message well but has spotty execution at times. Hopefully those videos are helping Jim with campaign financing too.
As for John Kimble, see Corrogan Vaughn. Most of his support came in the last day or two because prior to that he was a cypher. So my guess is that he or one of his backers caught wind of the poll and tried to make it sound like he had a little bit of backing. On the bright side, he did beat Vaughn in 2006 with 2.9% of the vote, finishing a very distant second in the primary.
I see Carmen Amedori as the “establishment” candidate based on her prior service in state government, and it sounds to me like she ignored the poll. I got a note from her that she was doing door-to-door instead, which makes sense. She’ll get far more than 3% in September, I’m certain of that.
On the other hand, McAndrew and Curran performed as expected.

At some point I’m going to do this again, perhaps later on this spring. But the next time I’m going to shorten the poll’s duration and see if I can dampen the repeat voting aspect to some extent. I had it set to one hour on my site but then again I don’t know if Polldaddy works that restriction through its site-based voting. (Now I know why I had 5,111 votes but not 5,111 readers! But readership did have a nice increase, thank you!)

I promised to put up some of the best comments for each candidate. There is no doubt that this poll was by far my best as participation goes, and I think I finally harnessed the power I envisioned when I started doing polling a few months back. These will be in order of finish, but most of the comments spoke about my top finishers and were cleaned up as needed for spelling errors and such.

“Sam” said about Dr. Eric Wargotz:

I don’t know. All are good people but very few really qualified to take a 6 year legislative hitch IMHO. I was quite taken with Dr. Eric Wargotz at the debate. Warm, comfortable, approachable style. Not stuffy and boring. Seemed to be right on with his responses. Came across very sincere and caring along with very knowledgeable. I have trouble supporting candidates for a 6 year legislative hitch if they have no elected legislative or constituent experience. I am also not a fan of politicians who are elected and then quit to take an appointed position. I feel that is a derilection of duty to the constituents who elected them. Just my view.

Jim Duncan pointed out the Facebook aspect – analytical like me:

Before you go too far in questioning the fairness of this poll, as the creator (of the poll) points out, it does appear to be consistent with each candidate’s level of support. At least with respect to the current order of finish, when you look at each campaign’s number of fans/friends on Facebook, where the candidates have pushed this poll. As best as I could tell, Eric Wargotz has by far the most support on Facebook with exactly 5000 friends. He has additional sites ranging from 126 to 1853 friends, but I will assume that most are duplicates. A distant second appears to be Corrogan Vaughn with 562, Vaughn has two other sites with 197 and 373 friends, Jim Rutledge with 514 and Carmen Amedori with 292, neither appeared to have other sites. I’ll bet there are some cross overs here as well…

Corrogan Vaughn had a number of passionate defenders for his cause. “JPS” liked his stand on the issues:

I agree with some of the above posters that we need someone who can take Baltimore city, and to add to that Vaughn can not only win Baltimore city, but he can win on solid principles. He has called for (abolishing) the IRS in place of sensible fair and simple taxation, abolishing the Department of Education because the education of our children comes from the states, and he’s serious about reining in spending. I know many have called Corrogan Vaughn the most Conservative candidate because he is deeply committed first and foremost to fiscal responsibility while maintaining social conservative values that will win over black conservative Democrats, a large voting bloc in Maryland fyi.

“Maryland Patriot” also chimed in for Vaughn:

I have worked in Maryland politics for several years on both sides of the aisle and have yet to meet an individual more honest and sincere than Corrogan Vaughn. The others are nice people, but seem to share the same disregard for the needs of everyday Marylanders as our present senator. Mr. Vaughn offers genuine solutions and ideas to the problems faced by our state and nation. He seems to be in this race out of sincere concern for Marylanders and Americans. Go Vaughn!

“Jasmine” was quite succinct:

I’m not familiar with politics here in Maryland but I will say that as a lifelong Democrat I’m switching to Republican this election to vote for Vaughn!!! Go Corrogan!

As Rush Limbaugh would say, “welcome home.” Meanwhile, Jim Rutledge supporters were in force early on. Here’s some of what they had to say, beginning with “libertypatriot”:

If you want a conservative candidate then the best candidate is Jim Rutledge. The other candidates do not possess the Constitutional knowledge and understanding that Jim possesses. While I don’t have anything personal against anyone in the race, conservatives know that Ehrlich is considered a moderate and what I’m hearing from people is Carmen is a reflection of that. Again, not making any judgment, just passing that on. Lastly, Tea Party people are tired of people already in government. We want an outsider, not an insider.

I think we all agree though… whomever ends up winning the Republican primary… needs to take down Mikulski. That’s the real end game.

In looking at her record, Amedori isn’t particularly moderate compared to some of her peers, regardless Wayne Ehrensberger said:

I have talked with Jim Rutledge at length on a wide range of topics. I can assure everyone that he is a staunch constitutional conservative, of solid moral character, knows the issues and fully articulates well thought out responsive plans and ideas. These same traits cannot be applied to Dr. Wargotz. Jim is a successful, experienced businessman. He is well versed in the politics although admittedly not a “veteran” politician. And that is certainly a good thing. What we obviously don’t need are more long term politicians. We need to put in place those that are in tune with the private sector that most of us work in and who understand, appreciate and will honestly adhere to the Constitution.

I am closely associated with several of Jim’s support staff. We knew each other before any of us were even aware of Jim Rutledge. These individuals would never align themselves with someone who isn’t a pure Constitutionalist. That of course also goes for me. I don’t possess any great incite into the remaining candidates, but I don’t really need to. The simple fact is that they are not Jim Rutledge. He is the individual that must win the seat currently held by Mikulski. Then we will finally have someone that truly represents We the People.

If anyone is interested in learning more about the Constitutional Conservative/Tea Party movement, I offer you two “Groups” based here in Maryland that you should check out and consider joining – allianceofamericanpatriots.org and restoreamericasmission.org. You will find yourself in company with many Maryland Patriots as well as the same from across the Nation.

Even the few Amedori supporters got their points across, with the best being “NRAD”:

I was at the debate in MoCo and by no fault of the YR’s the venue was pretty lousy for all the candidates. There was no PA system and there were barriers in the middle of the room. So by all standards ALL the candidates did a pretty decent job considering they had to shout at the top of thier voices so the people in the back and behind the walls could hear. By no means, should that be a gauge of anything. I will note that in all my days in politics it is always the front runner who takes the worst beating. May I suggest, however, that we not beat up on the GOP candidates. I bet Ronald Reagan would be turning in his grave by such antics.

Now, my candidate is Amedori for many reasons. And her experience is in the private and public sector – such a fabric upon which sound and wise decisions can be made. It is going to take that fortitude to take on the corruption in D.C. She has never shied away from a good fight. I remember her when she confronted then Lt. Gov Townsend and the way she always took on Joe Curran in Judiciary Committee. This woman is relentless. And, in my opinion, it is going to take a strong woman to take the fight to Babs. Amedori will surely do that. She has a conservative voting record to reflect her positions. Seems to me that anyone can say what they will do but we really need to look at what has been done. She is 100% pro life, 100% small business having been a recipient of The Shaw Award with MD Business for Responsive Government. And she is a fiscal conservative. All of that is reflected in her voting record. That is why Amedori has my vote.

The poll and comments are available here. While I’m changing my poll today, I must say this version was a memorable one!

Poll update – day 3

It looks like two candidates’ supporters are taking this seriously.

As of about 3:00 this afternoon, it’s become a two-way race:

Eric Wargotz 1,785 (49%)
Corrogan Vaughn 1,156 (32%)
Jim Rutledge 499 (14%)
Carmen Amedori 128 (4%)
John Kimble 43 (1%)
Daniel McAndrew 5 (<1%)
John Curran 4 (<1%)

Let’s look at what happened in the last 24 hours or so:

Eric Wargotz 948 (54%)
Corrogan Vaughn 783 (46%)
Jim Rutledge 23 (1%)
Carmen Amedori 2 (<1%)

No one else got a vote, so it’s obvious that this poll may have run its course as a useful exercise.

The percentage changes are as follows:

Corrogan Vaughn +12 (20 to 32)
Eric Wargotz +4 (45 to 49)
Daniel McAndrew 0 (stays at <1)
John Curran 0 (stays at <1)
John Kimble -1 (2 to 1)
Carmen Amedori -3 (7 to 4)
Jim Rutledge -12 (26 to 14)

The poll will end on Tuesday, and I’ll have the final totals and the conclusions I draw from them that night.

By the way, the “Eric” you see on the Polldaddy.com comments is not the candidate Eric Wargotz. I figured you’d know that but he took the time today to point out it wasn’t the case. I can moderate these comments to some extent, but only after the fact.

I think when I wrap this exercise up I may post some of the better comments and cases for some of the candidates.

Poll tracking – day 2

Well, things haven’t slowed down with my U.S. Senate poll, as the total response closes in on the 2,000 mark.

Again, I stress this isn’t a strictly scientific poll as there is the opportunity for multiple responses from the same person – but there is a time-out period built in. Yes, the system can be gamed but my theory is that the gamesmanship will occur roughly in proportion with actual support.

Here are the results I had shortly before 4:00 this afternoon:

Eric Wargotz 837 (45%)
Jim Rutledge 476 (26%)
Corrogan Vaughn 373 (20%)
Carmen Amedori 126 (7%)
John Kimble 43 (2%)
Daniel McAndrew 5 (<1%)
John Curran 4 (<1%)

The other key number is tracking the daily totals as opposed to the overall totals. It was just about 24 hours since my first update, and the change since then has been most meaningful for Wargotz and Amedori. The percentage is the share of the votes cast in the last day or so.

Eric Wargotz 582 (54%)
Jim Rutledge 247 (23%)
Corrogan Vaughn 220 (20%)
Carmen Amedori 31 (3%)
John Kimble 3 (<1%)
Daniel McAndrew 2 (<1%)
John Curran 0 (0%)

I did some checking on my Facebook page among the universe of friends I have and those associated with the Corrogan Vaughn campaign (including the candidate) plugged the poll twice, while a Wargotz ally did it once. Now here is the precentage difference from yesterday to today – you can see who benefitted at whose expense.

Eric Wargotz +12 (33 to 45)
Corrogan Vaughn 0 (still at 20)
Daniel McAndrew 0 (still at <1)
John Curran -1 (1 to <1)
Jim Rutledge -3 (29 to 26)
John Kimble -3 (5 to 2)
Carmen Amedori -5 (12 to 7)

This is what I mean by depth of support – Wargotz’s supporters continue to flood the poll and perhaps distort it somewhat. But the last time I did this Wargotz held a large early lead only to see Jim Rutledge supporters close the gap at the end, so perhaps this may play out again.

Tomorrow I’ll do another update – I expect the pace to slow down some during the weekend but a big share from someone could have a significant impact on the results. The poll continues for a few more days (I have an end date set for it but I won’t say when it is) so we’ll see whether the supporters can keep going – it determines depth of support and also helps me determine whether my theory is validated or not.

Poll tracking – day 1

With the huge interest in my poll regarding who should face Barbara Mikulski for the U.S. Senate seat she currently occupies, I thought it would be a good idea to keep a daily track of it for the duration.

Most of the major candidates have posted about it on their Facebook pages multiple times, so the sampling size is extraordinarily high. As of 3 p.m. this afternoon there were 779 total votes cast, and the interim results follow:

Eric Wargotz 255 (33%)
Jim Rutlegdge 229 (29%)
Corrogan Vaughn 153 (20%)
Carmen Amedori 95 (12%)
John Kimble 40 (5%)
John Curran 4 (1%)
Daniel McAndrew 3 (<1%)

Obviously this is a very tight race and I encourage people to stay involved! I’ll try to keep this tracking going for the duration of the poll, which will continue for the next few days.

Ehrlich slowly closing the gap

A Rasmussen poll taken late last month shows former Governor Bob Ehrlich within striking distance of Martin O’Malley. The likely Republican nominee now trails by 6 points, 49 percent to 43 percent.

Neither candidate is disliked by voters, though, as both candidates’ personal favorability ratings lie in the mid-50’s (O’Malley 54, Ehrlich 55.)

On job approval, though, Governor O’Malley is at 53 percent. While that’s an improvement over his September numbers in a Gonzales Research survey, looking deeper into the poll suggests his support is relatively tepid – strong disapproves lead strong approves 23-18. However, previous Gonzales data had saddled O’Malley with a sub-50 approval rating since March 2007 so the spin machine must finally be working in his favor.

It’s also worthy of note, though, that O’Malley’s numbers were at the lowest immediately after the tax increases of the 2007 Special Session he called took effect in 2008. At that point he was 10 to 11 points underwater on approval/disapproval. That’s also why I believe any tax increase comes immediately after he’s safely re-elected.

By comparison, President Obama has a 59% approval rating in Maryland with strong approves leading 38-32 over strong disapproves. Obviously Obama is quite the polarizing figure, even here.

In September, the Gonzales poll showed O’Malley leading 49-38 over Ehrlich, but O’Malley’s approval rating was only 48 percent. Oddly, that poll had both candidates’ personal approval numbers much lower (O’Malley 47, Ehrlich 42) so it appears time has burnished the perception of both gentlemen.

Obviously the poll which counts will be the one taken November 2nd, but pocketbook issues might have a way of changing the snapshots in time we see between now and then. Truly there is no other issue of importance in this race.

It’s all in how you ask the question

One news item making the rounds today comes from a polling question. The ABC News/Washington Post poll asked Americans about a number of subjects, but the headline comes from a statement that 80% of Americans disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case.

Perhaps they do, but I think some of the disagreement comes in the way the question was asked. Here’s how the poll asked the respondents on the 35th of a grueling 40-question list:

Changing topics, do you support or oppose the recent ruling by the Supreme Court that says corporations and unions can spend as much money as they want to help political candidates win elections? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

Well, shoot, when you ask it that way, I might even be inclined to oppose the decision. I wonder if the responses would’ve been different had the question been asked:

Do you support or oppose the Supreme Court decision which held that corporations have the same free speech rights as individuals when it comes to political contributions?

But by couching in both political and monetary terms, the pollsters led people to what they considered the “proper” answer. It also shows that Americans are woefully deficient at understanding the Constitution because they agreed with the next question:

Would you support or oppose an effort by Congress to reinstate limits on corporate and union spending on election campaigns? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

Obviously they don’t recall the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” The Supreme Court held money equalled speech in Buckley v. Valeo:

The Court concurred in part with the appellants’ claim, finding that the restrictions on political contributions and expenditures “necessarily reduce[d] the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of the exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today’s mass society requires the expenditure of money.”

Understanding that is the key to supporting the Citizens United decision. There are still laws on the books regarding disclosure of who contributes, and those are advisable.

What Democrats in Congress would like to do is put the genie back in the bottle for corporations, yet leave unions free to do whatever they wish. Obviously they’re a little angry that their key special interest now has to play on a more level field than they did before the Citizens United decision.

Every time someone tries to take the money out of politics, smart people figure out ways around it. When McCain-Feingold passed, millions of dollars just shifted to 527 groups who did the dirty work for politicans. At least with the Citizens United case we’ll have more accountability to just who gave money to whom, then try to figure out the quid quo pro.

If the press wasn’t worried about losing influence, perhaps they wouldn’t need to create an artificial issue by asking loaded questions on a poll. The SCOTUS may not have made the popular decision, but it made the correct one.

The Senate survey says…

Over the last couple weeks I’ve ran a survey of who readers prefer to face Barbara Mikulski this fall. Here are the results of my very non-scientific poll.

Out of over 100 responses, Dr. Eric Wargotz had 49% of the vote (with 58 votes), with Jim Rutledge being his closest competitor. Jim garnered 37% of the vote with 44 supporting him. Corrogan Vaughn trailed with 15 votes (13%) while Daniel McAndrew had 1 vote for him.

It was interesting how the count transpired as Wargotz, Rutledge, and Vaughn started out fairly even through the first 40 to 50 tallies. But once each competitor had about 12 to 15 votes apiece (aside from McAndrew), the Wargotz total started surging to a point where he had a significant lead (over 60% of the total) before Rutledge came on at the end to even things out somewhat.

In truth, though, this survey may have been a little premature as word has leaked out of a fifth competitor, former Delegate Carmen Amedori of Carroll County. Since Wargotz seems to be the frontrunner, it would appear that he has the most to lose from her candidacy, but he noted that it’s “not for me to judge ones qualifications. Others will do that. May the ‘best’ candidate prevail.”

I’m thinking this will be a three-way race if Amedori gets in, but it’s anyone’s race among the three with Wargotz as the frontrunner. Since I’m not aware of any scientific poll on the race yet, mine could be the closest idea of just how the candidates are faring with campaign organization and name recognition.