# Liberty Movement > Defenders of Liberty > Justin Amash Forum >  Michigan Senate GOP Primary Poll by Murray Communications

## tsai3904

Michigan Senate Republican Primary
May 20, 2013
1,158 likely Republican primary voters
+/-2.88%

Mike Rogers
35.66%

Terri Lynn Land
28.84%

Justin Amash
10.28%

Kurt Dykstra
9.93%

Roger Kahn
5.18%

Pete Lund
4.66%

Rob Steele
2.85%

Saul Anuzis
1.38%

Jim Murray
1.21%



http://www.scribd.com/doc/142771213/...-Press-Release

----------


## Brett85

Hmmm.  Not great news there.

----------


## supermario21

Wow the Tea partiers between Steele and Amash are getting destroyed. Amash should just focus on his House race...

----------


## EBounding

I don't get why Lynn Land isn't 1st.  Hrmm.

----------


## erowe1

> That sounds good, but again, you're assuming some things. For example, "[Amash can] draw higher turnout against the dems in key areas, one of which is Dearborn"
> 
> Do you have any evidence to support that this can be done? Or is this wishful thinking? Again, is it wise to risk a long House career on the assumption that people will turn out for certain reasons?
> 
> To be clear, I'm not trying to argue against a Senate bid. I'm just trying to raise some points so you guys don't throw away a House career because of shaky assumptions and wishful thinking. Just trying to help.


I don't think Dearborn is a factor.

But that aside, Amash is definitely the kind of Republican who can get a lot of support from independents. And in Michigan, that will be a factor.

----------


## Warlord

Amash would lose badly. Some people don't realize how difficult it is to go from congressman to running statewide. 

Nobody has heard of Amash outside his district and unless he spends millions they still wont know anything about him and believe me the DNC if he was the nominee would be straight in there with millions branding him as unacceptable.  It would not be a fair fight and he'd lose.

The woman Land is the best bet for the GOP... I dont see how they can attack her and she's ran statewide twice before winning 55% of the vote. She has the right profile to quietly ride Snyder's coat tails into office without much fuss or controversy.

----------


## erowe1

> Amash would lose badly. Some people don't realize how difficult it is to go from congressman to running statewide.


Aside from someone who's already been a governor or US Senator, US Congressman is the best background someone can have to run for US Senate. Secretary of State is not any better than that.

I see Amash winning. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

----------


## Warlord

> Aside from someone who's already been a governor or US Senator, US Congressman is the best background someone can have to run for US Senate. Secretary of State is not any better than that.
> 
> I see Amash winning. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.


Well you saw nothing wrong with Mourdock.  According to you he ran a flawless campaign and just got unlucky that tens of thousands of people split their vote for some random, unspecified, unfathomable reason.

----------


## erowe1

> Well you saw nothing wrong with Mourdock.  According to you he ran a flawless campaign and just got unlucky that tens of thousands of people split their vote for some random, unspecified, unfathomable reason.


He didn't run a flawless campaign. But his opponent had an advantage, having been a congressman.

----------


## Warlord

> He didn't run a flawless campaign. But his opponent had an advantage, having been a congressman.


No he did not.  His opponents advantage stemmed from his idiotic campaign where he blew it (which you completely fail to admit).

The Dem could have been your neighbor and he'd have won.  The Dem also had all the outside support he needed and millions from DNC/crony corporate donors/Reid.  Amash wouldn't get any of this. They'd cut him adrift.

----------


## AJ Antimony

> Amash is definitely the kind of Republican who can get a lot of support from independents


But isn't this just wishful thinking? Is there any evidence that could actually back up this claim?

----------


## AJ Antimony

> Amash would lose badly. Some people don't realize how difficult it is to go from congressman to running statewide. 
> 
> Nobody has heard of Amash outside his district and unless he spends millions they still wont know anything about him and believe me the DNC if he was the nominee would be straight in there with millions branding him as unacceptable.  It would not be a fair fight and he'd lose.
> 
> The woman Land is the best bet for the GOP... I dont see how they can attack her and she's ran statewide twice before winning 55% of the vote. She has the right profile to quietly ride Snyder's coat tails into office without much fuss or controversy.


Before Justin Amash, Jeff Flake was the #2 libertarian in Congress behind Ron Paul. When Flake ran for Senate, every ad against him was attacking his voting record. You name it, he was attacked for it. And he still won. Amash by no means would be DOA. With a great campaign strategy and with millions in outside spending coming in, Amash should have no trouble whatsoever at least making the race competitive. Besides, wasn't it Land herself that said something like 'I've learned the hard way: do not underestimate Justin Amash'?

----------


## Brett85

I'd really like to get Amash into the Senate so that we can at least have one non interventionist in the U.S Senate.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'd really like to get Amash into the Senate so that we can at least have one non interventionist in the U.S Senate.


Does the House get to vote on the Iran bill?  Did/is Amash vot(ing) against it?

----------


## Warlord

> Before Justin Amash, Jeff Flake was the #2 libertarian in Congress behind Ron Paul. When Flake ran for Senate, every ad against him was attacking his voting record. You name it, he was attacked for it. And he still won. Amash by no means would be DOA. With a great campaign strategy and with millions in outside spending coming in, Amash should have no trouble whatsoever at least making the race competitive. Besides, wasn't it Land herself that said something like 'I've learned the hard way: do not underestimate Justin Amash'?


Flake nearly lost and he was in a deep red state!

And Amash would not get outside spending. They would rather a Dem win than him. Kind of like the Sanford race he'd be on his own.

----------


## Brett85

> Does the House get to vote on the Iran bill?  Did/is Amash vot(ing) against it?


I don't think they've voted on it yet, but I'm sure Amash would vote against it.  He's voted against similar resolutions.

----------


## Brett85

Amash did vote in favor of one sanctions bill against Iran, but he's voted against about five others.  The sanctions bill he voted for wasn't really even a sanction against the country of Iran, but simply a sanction against companies that sell weapons of mass descruction to them.  It wasn't really a bad bill like most sanctions are.  It wasn't the type of sanctions that hurt the people of Iran.

----------


## AJ Antimony

> Flake nearly lost and he was in a deep red state!
> 
> And Amash would not get outside spending. They would rather a Dem win than him. Kind of like the Sanford race he'd be on his own.


I don't think you know what you're talking about.

First, Arizona isn't exactly deep red. 

Second, even if it was, that shouldn't excuse your presumption that No-voting congressmen are unelectable. You are suggesting that Amash is doomed because his voting record would be attacked over and over. Well, Jeff Flake was attacked over and over for his No votes and he still won. I accept that as evidence that No-voting congressmen aren't doomed from winning higher office. 

Third, Amash would get outside spending. Ever heard of the Club for Growth or FreedomWorks? 

Fourth, you should learn a thing or two about Mark Sanford before comparing him to others. National Republicans abandoned him entirely for personal reasons. It had nothing to do with where he stood on the issues.

Fifth, since Amash doesn't have any "personal issues," how can you possibly suggest that the NRSC would abandon him? Sure, they won't spend money in Michigan if he's down by 30 in the polls, but if the race is competitive, you better believe the NRSC will be interested. Maybe you missed the part where Republicans would like to be the majority party in the Senate?

----------


## sailingaway

> Flake nearly lost and he was in a deep red state!
> 
> And Amash would not get outside spending. They would rather a Dem win than him. Kind of like the Sanford race he'd be on his own.


Flake voted for the Patriot act and lost a bunch of US.

Amash is far better than Flake.

----------


## supermario21

Mitt Romney won Arizona by a larger margin than McCain did (10 points). That's a bigger margin than a deep red state like Georgia (Paul Broun anyone??). Flake could only muster a 49-45 plurality.

----------


## sailingaway

> I don't think you know what you're talking about.
> 
> First, Arizona isn't exactly deep red. 
> 
> Second, even if it was, that shouldn't excuse your presumption that No-voting congressmen are unelectable. You are suggesting that Amash is doomed because his voting record would be attacked over and over. Well, Jeff Flake was attacked over and over for his No votes and he still won. I accept that as evidence that No-voting congressmen aren't doomed from winning higher office. 
> 
> Third, Amash would get outside spending. Ever heard of the Club for Growth or FreedomWorks? 
> 
> Fourth, you should learn a thing or two about Mark Sanford before comparing him to others. National Republicans abandoned him entirely for personal reasons. It had nothing to do with where he stood on the issues.
> ...



RE outside spending, Liberty For All (the Ron Paul supporter PAC who supported Massie) said something about supporting Amash if he ran for Senate, as I recall.

----------


## sailingaway

> Mitt Romney won Arizona by a larger margin than McCain did (10 points). That's a bigger margin than a deep red state like Georgia (Paul Broun anyone??). Flake could only muster a 49-45 plurality.


Romney was tougher on illegal immigration than McCain, at least in rhetoric. This is ARIZONA.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> RE outside spending, Liberty For All (the Ron Paul supporter PAC who supported Massie) said something about supporting Amash if he ran for Senate, as I recall.


Yep, to the tune of 7 figures.

----------


## erowe1

> Fourth, you should learn a thing or two about Mark Sanford before comparing him to others. National Republicans abandoned him entirely for personal reasons. It had nothing to do with where he stood on the issues.


I doubt that.

----------


## Warlord

> Flake voted for the Patriot act and lost a bunch of US.
> 
> Amash is far better than Flake.


I never said he isn't... he obviously is and has a perfect voting record but if Flake can barely win in AZ can you imagine what they will do to Justin in MI? 

Bloodbath.

----------


## Warlord

> I don't think you know what you're talking about.
> 
> First, Arizona isn't exactly deep red. 
> 
> Second, even if it was, that shouldn't excuse your presumption that No-voting congressmen are unelectable. You are suggesting that Amash is doomed because his voting record would be attacked over and over. Well, Jeff Flake was attacked over and over for his No votes and he still won. I accept that as evidence that No-voting congressmen aren't doomed from winning higher office. 
> 
> Third, Amash would get outside spending. Ever heard of the Club for Growth or FreedomWorks? 
> 
> Fourth, you should learn a thing or two about Mark Sanford before comparing him to others. National Republicans abandoned him entirely for personal reasons. It had nothing to do with where he stood on the issues.
> ...


Flake won but in a deep red state by 2 points.  He performed woefully.  Justin would get beat up even harder by the DNC in MI and I think would lose.

----------


## sailingaway

> I never said he isn't... he obviously is and has a perfect voting record but if Flake can barely win in AZ can you imagine what they will do to Justin in MI? 
> 
> Bloodbath.



What is your point? That we should want a 'winner' who isn't good over a truly good candidate?

I don't want to LOSE Justin.  I want to support him and let him find out his chances early so we can keep him in the House in case he doesn't have a real chance at the Senate for whatever reason. However there isn't anyone I would support OVER him for Senate.

----------


## sailingaway

> Flake won but in a deep red state by 2 points.  He performed woefully.  Justin would get beat up even harder by the DNC in MI and I think would lose.


Again you say Arizona is deep red. It simply isn't.

Whereas Amash's civil liberties record would be attractive across party lines, unlike Flake-who-voted-for-the-Patriot-Act 

Will it be enough?  

I dunno.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Again you say Arizona is deep red. It simply isn't.
> .


It's called creating a narrative to fit one's meme. It's usually on full display when we're discussing an Amash Senate run.

----------


## Warlord

> Again you say Arizona is deep red. It simply isn't.
> 
> Whereas Amash's civil liberties record would be attractive across party lines, unlike Flake-who-voted-for-the-Patriot-Act 
> 
> Will it be enough?  
> 
> I dunno.


Flake underperformed Romney massively there and I think Justin would get slapped hard with his voting record should he be the nominee

----------


## supermario21

Flake's opponent was a moderate-conservative Democrat. The Patriot Act/civil liberties issues were not in play.

----------


## wormyguy

Michigan is 22 points more Democratic than Arizona (Cook PVI R+7 vs. D+4), so the point is a very valid one.  If it had been Conway/Paul in Michigan, it would have been a 61-39 landslide for Conway, and Flake would have lost to Carmona 57-38.

Also, Arizona is more Republican than Georgia (R+7 vs. R+6), just in case any of you who are arguing "Arizona isn't a deep red state!" are also claiming that "Broun can't possibly lose in Georgia, because it's a deep red state!"

----------


## Brett85

> I never said he isn't... he obviously is and has a perfect voting record but if Flake can barely win in AZ can you imagine what they will do to Justin in MI? 
> 
> Bloodbath.


Justin has an ideology that's 180 degrees opposite of Flake's ideology.  I don't really see why you're comparing Amash and Flake.

----------


## wormyguy

> Justin has an ideology that's 180 degrees opposite of Flake's ideology.  I don't really see why you're comparing Amash and Flake.



http://www.opencongress.org/people/compare?utf8=✓&representatives=true&person1=412438  &person2=400134&commit=Compare




> Justin Amash and Jeff Flake have voted together 1527 times on roll call votes since January, 2007 in votes where neither abstained, representing a voting similarity of 84%. The list below highlights how their voting records compare on passage of bills and editorially-selected "hot" votes on amendments.


16% different is now 180 degrees opposite?

----------


## Warlord

> Michigan is 22 points more Democratic than Arizona (Cook PVI R+7 vs. D+4), so the point is a very valid one.  If it had been Conway/Paul in Michigan, it would have been a 61-39 landslide for Conway, and Flake would have lost to Carmona 57-38.
> 
> Also, Arizona is more Republican than Georgia (R+7 vs. R+6), just in case any of you who are arguing "Arizona isn't a deep red state!" are also claiming that "Broun can't possibly lose in Georgia, because it's a deep red state!"


I think Broun would easily win because the Dems are just so weak in GA... in AZ they held the governors mansion little more than a few years ago (wasn't Cousin Janet their governor before joining the Obama admin?)

----------


## wormyguy

> I think Broun would easily win because the Dems are just so weak in GA... in AZ they held the governors mansion little more than a few years ago (wasn't Cousin Janet their governor before joining the Obama admin?)


If there is anyone who can lose in Georgia, it's Broun.  Man has a severe case of foot-in-mouth disease.  I want him to win but I would never bet on it even if he gets past the primary.

And yes, Obama did the GOP a favor by removing from office two red state Democratic governors, Janet and Sebelius.

----------


## Brett85

> 16% different is now 180 degrees opposite?[/FONT][/SIZE]


A lot of votes in the house are simply procedural votes.  Justin can appeal to independents and Democrats on a lot of issues that someone like Flake can't.  He has different positions than Flake on the Patriot Act, the NDAA, warrantless wiretapping, drones, foreign war, foreign military bases, sanctions, marriage, drugs, etc.  Amash has far more appeal to independent voters and Democrats than someone like Flake.

----------


## AJ Antimony

> Mitt Romney won Arizona by a larger margin than McCain did (10 points). That's a bigger margin than a deep red state like Georgia (Paul Broun anyone??). Flake could only muster a 49-45 plurality.


What's your point?

----------


## AJ Antimony

> RE outside spending, Liberty For All (the Ron Paul supporter PAC who supported Massie) said something about supporting Amash if he ran for Senate, as I recall.


Yes! Them too. I forgot about them.

----------


## sailingaway

> Flake underperformed Romney massively there and I think Justin would get slapped hard with his voting record should he be the nominee


but Flake to Romney has nothing to do with Amash who is better than both.

----------


## AJ Antimony

> Michigan is 22 points more Democratic than Arizona (Cook PVI R+7 vs. D+4), so the point is a very valid one.  If it had been Conway/Paul in Michigan, it would have been a 61-39 landslide for Conway, and Flake would have lost to Carmona 57-38.
> 
> Also, Arizona is more Republican than Georgia (R+7 vs. R+6), just in case any of you who are arguing "Arizona isn't a deep red state!" are also claiming that "Broun can't possibly lose in Georgia, because it's a deep red state!"


You can't just flip the numbers around like that. You are throwing out all the factors that produced those numbers--factors which are unique to those specific candidates in their specific races in their specific circumstances.

For example, your flip of the Kentucky results completely removes the 2010 "wave" factor. In 2010, Michigan Republican Rick Snyder won the governor's race 58%-40%. You're really telling me that if Kentucky SOS Jack Conway and Kentucky eye doctor Rand Paul were the nominees for US Senate in Michigan in 2010, Conway would have won 61-39, even though Republicans won basically every other race in the state? Including the governor's race by a huge margin? Sorry, you can't flip numbers like that.

----------


## wormyguy

> A lot of votes in the house are simply procedural votes. Justin can appeal to independents and Democrats on a lot of issues that someone like Flake can't. He has different positions than Flake on the Patriot Act, the NDAA, warrantless wiretapping, drones, foreign war, foreign military bases, sanctions, marriage, drugs, etc. Amash has far more appeal to independent voters and Democrats than someone like Flake.


The OpenCongress comparison tool specifically excludes procedural votes.




> You can't just flip the numbers around like that. You are throwing out all the factors that produced those numbers--factors which are unique to those specific candidates in their specific races in their specific circumstances.
> 
> For example, your flip of the Kentucky results completely removes the 2010 "wave" factor. In 2010, Michigan Republican Rick Snyder won the governor's race 58%-40%. You're really telling me that if Kentucky SOS Jack Conway and Kentucky eye doctor Rand Paul were the nominees for US Senate in Michigan in 2010, Conway would have won 61-39, even though Republicans won basically every other race in the state? Including the governor's race by a huge margin? Sorry, you can't flip numbers like that.


The election was in 2010 in Kentucky as well; it is completely legitimate to adjust the numbers to reflect Michigan's partisan lean as opposed to Kentucky's.  If it wasn't the wave year of 2010, Conway (and Trey Greyson, too), would almost certainly have handily won, I'm sorry to say.

----------


## AJ Antimony

> The election was in 2010 in Kentucky as well; it is completely legitimate to adjust the numbers to reflect Michigan's partisan lean as opposed to Kentucky's.


If you want to speculate how Conway/Rand would have performed had they been running in Michigan, then you have to adjust voter make-up and turnout, NOT the final results. I mean look at Kentucky. KY in terms of voter registration is solid Democrat... but federal election results are almost always Republican. Adjust the factors that produce the results. You can't just adjust the results. 




> If it wasn't the wave year of 2010, Conway (and Trey Greyson, too), would almost certainly have handily won, I'm sorry to say.


Let me guess. You have absolutely no evidence to back this up.

----------


## IndianaPolitico

I am really unsure about Amash running for senate, we don't want to lose him.

----------


## jkob

The dem candidate Richard Carmona was the Surgeon General under George W. Bush, a "moderate", Hispanic, and a Vietnam veteran. He was a strong candidate and I think the dems here will run him for office again soon.  Flake also faced a contested primary vs Wil Cardon who was rich enough to self fund and they ran pretty negative against each other. Not to mention, the Libertarian candidate got more than the margin of victory. I don't think you can really compare the 2012 AZ senate race to a senate race in 2014 in another state, especially Michigan.

----------


## AJ Antimony

> The dem candidate Richard Carmona was the Surgeon General under George W. Bush, a "moderate", Hispanic, and a Vietnam veteran. He was a strong candidate and I think the dems here will run him for office again soon.  Flake also faced a contested primary vs Wil Cardon who was rich enough to self fund and they ran pretty negative against each other. Not to mention, the Libertarian candidate got more than the margin of victory. I don't think you can really compare the 2012 AZ senate race to a senate race in 2014 in another state, especially Michigan.


The only comparison I made is that Jeff Flake votes No very frequently and yet even with a very strong Democrat solely attacking his voting record, he still won. 

Some people think that voting No on everything makes it impossible to move up to higher office. Flake's promotion shows otherwise.

----------


## Brett85

> The only comparison I made is that Jeff Flake votes No very frequently and yet even with a very strong Democrat solely attacking his voting record, he still won.


He might've voted that way five years ago.  He's completely sold out since then.

----------


## AJ Antimony

> He might've voted that way five years ago.  He's completely sold out since then.


You can't say something like that without backing it up with some sort of evidence.

----------


## Brett85

> You can't say something like that without backing it up with some sort of evidence.


http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/05/08/...n-gun-control/

----------


## AJ Antimony

> http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/05/08/...n-gun-control/


Aaaaaand of course your evidence would be a single, dated Glen Beck opinion piece.

It turns out Jeff Flake voted against Manchin-Toomey and against the Internet Tax. 

I'd say 'try again' but I wouldn't want you to embarrass yourself again.

----------


## Krzysztof Lesiak

He's gotta stay in Congress then. Will be very, very hard to take the primary, and the general will be even harder.

We can't take any risks.

----------


## Brett85

> Aaaaaand of course your evidence would be a single, dated Glen Beck opinion piece.
> 
> It turns out Jeff Flake voted against Manchin-Toomey and against the Internet Tax. 
> 
> I'd say 'try again' but I wouldn't want you to embarrass yourself again.


Are you really saying that you're a fan of Jeff Flake?  He flirted with supporting both of these bills and has said that he'll vote for the Manchin-Toomey bill if some changes are made.  He also voted in favor of the indefinite detention of U.S citizens in the NDAA.  Yeah, some friend of liberty he is.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Are you really saying that you're a fan of Jeff Flake?  He flirted with supporting both of these bills and has said that he'll vote for the Manchin-Toomey bill if some changes are made.  He also voted in favor of the indefinite detention of U.S citizens in the NDAA.  Yeah, some friend of liberty he is.


It's not about being a fan or not, it's about continuing to apply the right kinds of pressure en mass on Flake and push him to make the right kinds of votes and to not give up on him. It is pathetic on his part that he's waffling but it's up to the grassroots of AZ to reel him back in, I get that McCain is a lost cause. I don't believe I've ever read any on the ground reports out of AZ so I don't know how effective or active certain elements of the roots are there. Flake is susceptible to constituent pressure where I believe McCain thinks himself above the peons.

----------


## AJ Antimony

> Are you really saying that you're a fan of Jeff Flake?  He flirted with supporting both of these bills and has said that he'll vote for the Manchin-Toomey bill if some changes are made.  He also voted in favor of the indefinite detention of U.S citizens in the NDAA.  Yeah, some friend of liberty he is.


Until he actually votes the wrong way on major legislation, I will continue to be the same fan of him that I always have been. I agree that it's bizarre that since becoming a Senator he's verbally trying to be Mr. Moderate on every issue, but until his actual voting record changes, I won't be significantly bothered.

And unfortunately you've embarrassed yourself again by suggesting that he voted for indefinite detention. As has been discussed many times here before, it turns out that he didn't! The FY 2012 NDAA is the legislation that contained the indefinite detention provision. He voted against it. He voted for the FY 2013 NDAA, but it didn't contain indefinite detention language (since such language was already law).

----------


## Brett85

> And unfortunately you've embarrassed yourself again by suggesting that he voted for indefinite detention. As has been discussed many times here before, it turns out that he didn't! The FY 2012 NDAA is the legislation that contained the indefinite detention provision. He voted against it. He voted for the FY 2013 NDAA, but it didn't contain indefinite detention language (since such language was already law).


He voted against it for different reasons than the indefinite detention provision.  He voted against the Smith-Amash amendment that repealed the indefinite detention provision in the NDAA.

----------


## Warlord

> It's not about being a fan or not, it's about continuing to apply the right kinds of pressure en mass on Flake and push him to make the right kinds of votes and to not give up on him. It is pathetic on his part that he's waffling but it's up to the grassroots of AZ to reel him back in, I get that McCain is a lost cause. I don't believe I've ever read any on the ground reports out of AZ so I don't know how effective or active certain elements of the roots are there. Flake is susceptible to constituent pressure where I believe McCain thinks himself above the peons.


This is true. He reads his facebook comments and no doubt the office tell him whats going on.  McCain is in his own world of DC cocktail parties and kissing Democrats butt.  He really doesn't care.

Flake will probably get more conservative as he gets further into his term and closer to re-election.  This often happens with senators. They suck straight after election and start coming back.  Flake has made some stupid decisions but on the "senate scale" he's still less bad than what was there previously. Kyl was just horrible,

----------

