Rep. Jim Matheson leads all comers in Utah's new 4th Congressional District, poll shows

Incumbency has its early privileges in new district

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    Dec. 29, 2011 10:07 a.m.

    I like Matheson. I am a lifelong registered Republican. The Utah GOP has been hijacked by extremists, radicals, and bullies. This happened many years ago, and Matheson recognized it. That is why he ran as a Democrat. He is a "moderate" Democrat, and is level-headed in considering ALL his constituents, not just partisan politics. And he has the courage to fight the gerrymandering games played by the Utah Republicans. His voting record reflects this. He is NOT the stool pigeon of Obama and Palosi. He is wisely independent and thoughtful.

    I like Matheson. He would have my vote.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 28, 2011 1:22 p.m.

    "Voodoo math", oh dear.

    How sad. That really made me sad when I read that.

    CJ, the "voodoo math" I am using is simple subtraction and comparison. I believe they teach subtraction in kindergarten, for goodness sakes. Many kids can easily perform basic subtraction (which is all I used) before they even enter school.

    And you call it "voodoo math". That really is sad.

    My numbers are correct.

    "When former president Bill Clinton left office in 2000 there was a $86.4 billion surplus. When former president George W. Bush left office in 2008 there was a $1.5 TRILLION BUDGET DEFICIT. Because Sen. Menendez was correct in stating that there was a $1.5 trillion budget deficit when George W. Bush left office and the budget surplus that Bill Clinton left from his presidency had turned into a deficit, we rate Sen. Menendezs statement TRUE."-Meet The Facts, FACT-CHECK: Sen. Bob Menendez National debt increased 72% during the Bush admin, there was a 1.5 trillion budget deficit at the end of his term, 7-18-10

    Peter tells me don't get caught up in the numbers, CJ calls subtraction "voodoo math".


  • CJ Murray, UT
    Dec. 27, 2011 8:59 p.m.


    I am not interested in your voodoo math, it is a verifiable fact that he has added more than all the previous Presidents combined, it has been on every news channel out there, even the liberal ones admit it, then they try to shift part of the blame to Republicans but they can't, he has done in three years,its an indisputable fact and even Democrats are not denying it. Why do you think he can't run on his record? Why do you think there is a draft Hillary movement afoot in the party? I don't know where you come up with your "facts" and numbers, they are not correct. With all due respect, you are simply wrong about it. Please see numbers from the Congressional Budget Office, they don't lie and you can't make the shoe fit.

  • peter Alpine, UT
    Dec. 27, 2011 6:47 p.m.

    mark, don't get caught up in the numbers or the spelling. The point I'm making is simply ALL incumbents need to go. You can't solve problems with the same minds that created them.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 27, 2011 5:54 p.m.

    CJ, you claim, Four billion a day is what [President Obama] has spent as President, that is more than ALL of the Presidents before him put together!!

    The national debt stood at $10.626 trillion the day President Obama was inaugurated. Today the national debt is 15.161 trillion. President Obama has added 4.535 trillion to the debt as of today.

    As you can see, that is less then the accumulated debt of all previous presidents.

    Regarding your belief that we should not discuss the damage done to this country by President Bush and the Republicans:

    When George W. Bush took office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When he left, it was $10.7 trillion. That's a difference of $4.97 trillion.

    The difference between Bushs and Obamas debt? President Bush had a surplus the day he took office. If President Bush and the Republicans had been responsible fiscal stewards the national debt would be paid off by now.

    Nevertheless, the deficit is clearly too high. I was outraged when Republican Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. ran up the debt on their watch. Were you?

  • CJ Murray, UT
    Dec. 27, 2011 5:08 p.m.


    Do you realize that it doesn't matter how long the Democrats have controlled anything? In three years the Democrat in the White House has spent 4 billion a day, more than all of the others before him put together. The rest is irrelevant!!! Wake up!!

  • CJ Murray, UT
    Dec. 27, 2011 4:58 p.m.


    Whatever the Republicans did or didn't do before him is totally irrelevant as Obama has made it worse by a factor of about 10. Four billion a day is what he has spent as President, that is more than ALL of the Presidents before him put together!! Stop whining about Bush, he hasn't been in office for over three years now, and anything he did is completely dwarfed by the community organizer who thinks money grows on trees.
    You guys don't seem to understand that by himself, without any help, he has spent your kids' and grandkids' entire lifetime income and is now working on your great grandkids' income. He has done this without the help of the Republicans who have been trying to stop him, but it is like trying to turn the tide of the ocean. If you want four more years of this then you need to buy yourself a new calculator with higher digits so you can start calculating the cost of all this to you and your future descendants. Leave them a diary explaining your logic in supporting all this so they will know why they are homeless.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 27, 2011 4:11 p.m.

    Peter, did you address my questioning of Anonymous attacks on Matheson, or CJs claim of Democrats running this country for the last four years? No, of course not.

    You did, though, attempt to give a history lesson.

    The 110th Congress (seated Jan 3, 2007) was the first time Democrats had controlled a majority in both chambers since 1995 (they held 49 seats in the Senate, but the two independent Senators caucused with them, an operational majority). The president was, of course, a Republican.

    The recession began in December 2007; eleven months later, not fifteen.

    The complex factors leading to the financial crisis hardly was created in eleven months.

    For example, one of the main causes of the recession, the collapse of the housing bubble in 2006 and the creation of the subprime mortgage crisis, had occurred by the time the 110th Congress was seated. The economic meltdown was already underway by the time Frank and Dodd took over the committees you mention. The junior Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, would not become president for another two years.

    Trying to teach history using a highly selective memory and partisan talking points is an exercise in futility, Peter.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Dec. 27, 2011 9:47 a.m.

    As voter voting absentee for 1/3 of my life while in the military, I am grateful for the political system that provides diversity for voters. After living in countries that have dictators, presidents that are like dictators, and others that act like kings, we are blessed to have a system that is pretty solid. Utah Republicans have the market on so many of the districts and counties that it can almost be as if the people in office are similar to the countries discussed above. They wrangle the districts to keep even one of the best Democrats on the move as he serves the people of the state. He is a very good person and they can't keep a good person down.

    It is sort of sad to see but that is the benefit of an open society where good wins out even though political leaders of one party try to suppress the opponent's efforts.

    Keep up the work Congressman Matheson to provide for a more balanced Utah.

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    Dec. 27, 2011 9:26 a.m.

    This is bogus hyperbole and almost an endorsement of Jim Matheson. I am new so my thoughts may be off but I think the absolute failure of Barack Obama will have such a motivated electorate that Jim Matheson will be voted out of office on the coattails of Barack Obama. Whoever the Republican candiate is will win decisively. It is dumb to have polls where only one side has a candidate.

  • TRUTH Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 27, 2011 8:27 a.m.

    Too bad a vote for Matheson is a vote for Pelosi, Reid and Obama.....

    I'll vote for anyone but Matheson.......

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Dec. 27, 2011 7:44 a.m.

    Anonymous Infinity If you read my post properly, you would see that I would cast my vote for Matheson as a protest vote, not because I support him. The Republicans have to do a better job of recruiting candidates, not two peas in a pod like Wimmer and Sandstrom. I can live with a good conservative, not two people who's egos are so far out of control and think that they are better than everyone else and that we should listen to them because they are smarter than us.

  • peter Alpine, UT
    Dec. 27, 2011 7:11 a.m.

    Mark, get over the trivial spelling lessons, and start learning your history lessons. The democrats took over and controlled a majority in both chambers starting Jan. 03, 2007. At that time, the DOW was at 12,621.77. The GDP the previous quarter was 3.5%. The unemployment rate was 4.6%. There were 52 previous straight months of jobs creation. It was also the day Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that took place 15 months later was in what part of the economy? BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES! Also, who took the third highest payoff from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? OBAMA!
    Voting for the same people will only bring the same results!

  • cymrul West Valley City, UT
    Dec. 27, 2011 12:04 a.m.

    @ CJ: I suppose you think that Hatch, and "good Ol' G.W." have NOTHING to do with the current situation we are in? NEWSFLASH: We didn't get into the mess we are in during JUST Obama's administration! G.W. a REPUBLICAN and the REPUBLICAN party are just as much to blame. The GOP is simply voting against anything the Democrats want, even when it's something the GOP has wanted in the past. We need to get rid of ALL the incumbents we currently have in Washington and start again. Vote for those who will work for the PEOPLE and NOT their political party!

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 10:47 p.m.

    Anonymous infinity, you believe people should not be allowed to be "envolved" (or involved, as some of us spell it) in America's political system if they have lost an election. Interesting. 

    So, can you tell us what makes Matheson part of the problem? What makes him a (gasp!) liberal? 

    Just off the top of your head, what votes has he taken that makes you believe he is a liberal (shudder) and also part of the problem? 

    Again, off the top of your head, no fair looking it up. 

    "Take a long hard look at the last three years and ask yourself if we can take another four years of Democrats running this country."

    CJ, you do realize that the Democrats have not held a majority in the House since 2010, right? They have only had a majority in half of Congress, the Republicans have controlled the other half. 

    And of the half the Democrats do control the Republicans have forced a super majority to move any legislation they don't agree with. The Democrats do not have a super majority in the Senate. 

    The Democrats have hardly been "running" this country.  

  • Woodyff Mapleton, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 9:51 p.m.

    @ Utah Bill - Matheson should be held accountable for his support of the Obama administration which is destroying our economy. Gerrymandering is used by the party in power - especially the Democrats. If they were in power they would use that position in their favor, and do all across this country. He should be voted out on the merits, his support of Obama does not show that he votes in the best interests of Utah or the American people.

  • Cottomwood Heights Guy Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 7:44 p.m.

    At this point in the 2010 campaign, Matheson was polling at arround 60%. This Poll is meaningless.

  • Cottomwood Heights Guy Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 6:41 p.m.

    This [oll is meaningless at this point, the first polls for the 2010 shows Matheson Easily being reelected, I won with only 50% of the vote. By the time the NRCC gets mathesons voting record out there, Matheson will sink.

  • Ok Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 26, 2011 2:05 p.m.

    Jim Matheson is not in my district. The redistricting changed all that. But if he were, I would vote for him. While I can't vote for him, I can sure encourage him and I intend to do that.

  • Mike in Texas Cedar City, Utah
    Dec. 26, 2011 10:49 a.m.

    Too bad he can't be a real Democrat. Too bad for him, too bad for Utah.

  • NeilT Clearfield, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 10:41 a.m.

    Voters are leaving both political parties in large numbers. People are fed up with extreme partisanship and gridlock in congress. Both Wimmer and Sandstrom are single issue candidate. Neither will rest until they force their right wing extremism on the all the voters. I would vote for Matheson if I lived in his district. Lets end this gridlock and extremism now. Utah needs leadership not ideology driven politicians with their personal vendetta's against those who dare disagree with them.

  • Anonymous Infinity American Fork, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 10:31 a.m.

    With all due respect, you are one of the prime reasons we have Matheson when he received moderate (also liberals) votes in his current district to keep sending him back to Washington, D.C. We need to keep turning over these politicians. They are not on a political "career" path. Being in political office is not a career. good folks in the Salt Lake Valley can't possibly think a Matheson is a better choice than the alternative. Please study the issues and learn how Matheson is part of the problem, and doesn't represent Utahns in anyway, shape, manner, or form. Matheson is part of the problem, not a solution.

  • On the other hand Spanish Fork, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 10:27 a.m.

    Matheson represents the average Utahn better than any other member of congress, and voters recognize that.

  • CJ Murray, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 9:25 a.m.

    Take a long hard look at the last three years and ask yourself if we can take another four years of Democrats running this country. Let that be your guide as to whom you will vote for. Matheson is very much a part of this administration and is in bed with Reid, Pelosi, and Obama, the most dangerous group of people to ever gain political power in the nations history. Anyone but Obama, anyone but Matheson.

  • Utah_1 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 9:11 a.m.

    "and all of Juab and Sanpete counties"

    Take a look at the map again. It has the population areas of Juab, but not the land areas and 40% of Sanpete's population.

    The good news is that over 1/3 won't vote for Rep. Matheson even if they had to pick someone they didn't know anything about.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 9:06 a.m.

    I'm a very conservative Republican, and I don't like either Wimmer or Sandstrom. Don't know anything about the Lady (I hope to learn about her). If Wimmer or Sandstrom win the Republican nod I'll cast a protest vote for Matheson. The Republicans could do a lot better than either of these guys. Wimmer is nothing but a political climber, and Sandstrom is too shoot from the hip.

  • Anonymous Infinity American Fork, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 9:04 a.m.

    The new 4th district needs to defeat Jim Matheson. He is a cloak and dagger, below the radar consumate democrat. I don't care what the pollsters say, get him out of the House of Representatives. He is first and last a democrat and cares little if at all about conservative issues. If he voted for Obama that's all we need to know. Even if and when Matheson is defeated, he will still be part of the Washington, D.C. environment. How do we get these people out of our lives? We still have Bennett hanging around politics, lobbying and the whole thing. This is what is wrong about people when they are voted out of office. They still are envolved. Show some character and do something else or retire. Give it up and move on. Seriously, let's get Matheson out of office people. We need fewer liberals in Washington, D.C.

  • peter Alpine, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 7:47 a.m.

    Voting out of pity for an individual is one of several poor reasons to support someone for office. Term limits, even for the few honest politicians, would help end much of the corruption in Washington. Career politicians are like wet socks, they need to be replaced.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 7:42 a.m.

    Matheson clearly votes based on having to get re-elected in a Republican state. He is a man with two masters since he has to gain favor from his Democrat leadership and we all know that no man can serve two masters. It's time to get someone who doesn't have a conflict of interest between his constituents and his leadership.

    I'd love to see Mia Love get it.

  • UTAH Bill Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 6:51 a.m.

    Matheson is not in my political party but has earned my respect. He hangs in there regardless of the roadblocks put in his way. I frankly don't like the way attempts have been made to gerrymander him out of office. That just ticks me off and makes me want to vote for him out of a sense of fairness. And, that's exactly what I intend to do.

  • My2Cents Taylorsville, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 6:48 a.m.

    Joe the plumber still gets my vote. Who cares about polls other than candidates? We the people are too smart to believe polls so they better worry about their baggage than their phony promises. With all the candidates, their baggage would fill the dumpsters of ocean barge and that's where they all belong.