Talk:Jim Pederson (businessman and politician)

Untitled
this article is obviously pro-Pederson, but it doesn't really matter, he's going to lose. his campaign is faltering badly and kyl seems to be doing a decent job so far. pederson's getting slaughtered in all the polls, even worse now than before he declared his candidacy.


 * Care to elaborate which parts are obviously pro-Pederson? Or to even register and sign your talk page additions? --JMurphy 01:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

i guess it's not too bad at second glance. he's given alot of credit for fundraising, rebuilding the party and getting napolitano and goddard elected, without mentioning that much of janet/dems money came from him personally. at least $2M i think. from what i hear, the az democratic party is not exactly a well oiled machine (neither is the repubs) and really isn't that much better off because of him. also, a slight dig at the end about kyl's polling numbers, "traditionally low for an incumbant." that really isn't specifically relevant to pederson himself, it's just kinda random and unexplained how it's stated. which numbers? favorability? name recognition? approval? head to head? is that why pederson decided to run? that's how i read it at first glance, but most polls are dubious if unexplained and we dont' even know what polls they are referring to. actually, all the head to head polls i've seen in the papers recently put kyl way ahead of pederson. also, that would be like putting a sentence in jon kyl's wikipedia article referring to news articles that say pederson's campaign is failing to gain traction and stating that as a fact, when others might actually disagree with that assesment. but i'll leave it be because i haven't done enough research to formally contribute. maybe when i get some time i will.