Tuesday, October 14, 2014

60% Want Universal Background Checks in Washington

s
King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg, a prominent Republican, is a vocal supporter of I-594.  State Republicans have come out agains the measure, which would close the “gun show loophole.”

seattle pi

Support has dipped but Initiative 594, which would close the “gun show loophole,” is holding onto a 60 percent support and a two-to-one lead among Washington voters, according to a new statewide Elway Poll.
Support for a rival measure backed by the gun lobby, I-591, has plummeted in the poll and now stands at only 39 percent. Forty-four percent of those surveyed said they oppose the measure.
I wonder if the crybaby gun-rights fanatics who scoffed at the 90% poll numbers will accept this one as valid.

16 comments:

  1. They will blame it on Bloomberg's money.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its interesting how you have no problem blaming the NRA's money for the success in preserving gun rights, yet when gun control advocacy groups emulate the tactics of gun rights groups and Former Mayor Bloomberg is on record stating that he can outspend the NRA, those victories the people making their voices heard.

      Delete
    2. I love your dishonest take. The NRA has decades of of paying off politicians and pressuring politicians to vote their way. Bloomberg started less than 2 years ago and does not have the network of lobbyists the NRA has had for decades. You need more than money you need a system ingrained in the Washington system that influences Congressperson's votes. Bloomberg isn't close to that and has at least 50 years to catch up on the NRA. The fact that Bloomberg will do it in much less than 50 years and already has plenty of money reflects the public's view that the gun loons have gotten way out of hand. Hope you lose well.

      Delete
    3. ss, I've mentioned before the difference between gun people and non gun people. The later group suffers from apathy. Most of them could not care less about this issue. Not true of the gun owners who all have a stake in the fight.

      Delete
    4. No poll will satisfy SS. He'll find some word twisting garbage to claim it's bogus.

      Delete
    5. "He'll find some word twisting garbage to claim it's bogus."

      We have but to wait a few more weeks and all of the polls will be moot. We'll have a real number that will show a true ppicture of the state of Washington on this issue.

      Delete
    6. That won't change your dishonest tactics.

      Delete
  2. In other words, Ignore the fact that we kept trying to beat you over the head with a made up and ludicrously inflated statistic.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "I wonder if the crybaby gun-rights fanatics who scoffed at the 90% poll numbers will accept this one as valid."

    Mike, in consideration of the fact that what are likely the same caliber of pollsters coming up with two wildly different sets of numbers, I'm going to have to wait a few extra weeks and see the results of the most accurate poll, that being the people voting.
    Here's a question I have, does anyone know if this initiative requires more than 50% of those voting in favor for it to pass? Or does it simply require more votes than those voting no?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I'm going to have to wait a few extra weeks and see the results of the most accurate poll, that being the people voting."

      The people DID just vote.

      Delete
    2. "The people DID just vote."

      You are incorrect Anon. This measure is going to be voted on during the midterm elections on November 4th. This is a poll which seems to contradict the mythical 90% figure that keeps being thrown out there repeatedly.

      Delete
    3. I secretly had my doubts about the 90% claims. But this one sounds more realistic.

      Delete
    4. So you doubted the number, yet you continued to use it and demand that we agree with it. Nice integrity there.

      Delete
    5. I never believed the 90% figure, but I did believe the 75% figure which was reported by many national polls before Obama's first election.

      Delete
    6. "So you doubted the number, yet you continued to use it and demand that we agree with it. Nice integrity there."

      I don't recall demanding that you agree with it. Can you point that out?

      Delete