There is no doubt that the overnight pay raise as it is remembered was a mistake for Dave Argall to vote with. As people remember: Dave along with a majority of representatives had voted to increase their pay and pensions over night.
Some have even accused Dave are heading up the bill, and lobbying for votes on the bill. Not true.
Dave voted along with the bill, but remains one of just a few members to vote for the bill, whom are still alive in today’s political environment. Within 4 months this pay raise was repealed. Dave Argall and Sam Rohrer co-wrote a bill which would repeal almost every part of the bill. The pay raise and the pension. But this does not explain why the bill went through in the first place.
There were several problems which were attempted to be address by this horrific bill, One was to increase the salary of law makers which had not been adjusted in over 20 years, likewise the pension which wasn't adjusted since shortly after its fund was created. But this is as deep as most people know about or remember.
The local Federal Judges and District Attorney’s salaries are capped based on this pay, without a pay increase here, other salaries could not be raised. At the time of this vote a majority of PA voters were unhappy that such people were not being paid accordingly.
Although in the end of the final bill representatives were allowed to keep 7,000, many of them did not. Dave Argall did not accept this money.
If Dave made this mistake, what will stop him from making similar mistakes again? One thing to remember is that Dave lead the charge to repeal the bill, and he didn’t stop until the bill was successful! He also passed legislation which blocked the state house from voting on bills after 11pm. On top of this he passed a bill which required law makers to not vote on a bill until 24hrs after they had received the bill in which they were voting on. In many states and in Congress these are some laws that need to be put into practice. If we send Dave Argall to Congress, we know he will:
1. Represent Us.
2. Learn from his mistakes.
3. Admit his mistakes.
4. Fight to correct injustice.
5. Push for Common sense laws and practices in Washington.
In 18 years we have continued to get the same things from Tim Holden! He says he is conservative, yet when his vote is needed he votes with his party. He has done so 11 times alone on the issue of Abortion since Aug 2007! He has voted for almost every pet project of government waste projects 97% over the past 2 years! We need to send someone to congress who knows the money they are spending is OURS NOT THEIRS!
Thursday, October 28, 2010
PA-17 has better option on Tuesday!
PA Sen. Dave Argall (R) challenges 18year Congressman Tim Holden. (D)
Both candidates represent Schuylkill County, a county which has not been represented by a republican in the house of representatives since the 1960's!
Abortion:
Tim Holden has been in office for 18 years as a congressmen, and has touted a pro-life rating of 100% up until 2006. In August 2007 according to National Right to Life, Tim Holden soiled his pro-life record be voting against the Pro-life movement for the very first time. Since then he has been going back and forth across the fence voting pro-choice on 10 additional occasions. More importantly on 3 separate occassions he would have been the deciding vote to block pro-choice legislation and opted out of voting. Dave on the other hand has been fighting for pro-life legislation.
Term Limits:
Tim once fought had for term limits, now that he has been in office for 18 years, he is no longer in favor of term limits, which is one of the campaign promises he swore to fight for 18 years ago. Dave Argall on the other hand supports term limits and agrees with what Tim had started 18 years ago, without limits the legislators become disconnected with the people and eventually become corrupt.
Spending:
According to Citizens Against Government Waste: Tim Holden has a 3% for voting against Wasteful spending in congress since 2009. This brings his career down to only 18% which puts him on the bottom tier of candidates for preventing Government waste. Meanwhile Dave Argall was just one of a few Republicans in the State senate to vote against the PA state budget for 2010, saying there is too much spending waste in the bill, and recently the many Democrats in Governors executive branch are predicting that there isn't enough of money to cover the budget, and this is why Rendell attacked Corbett claiming that he will have to raise taxes.
Blue-Dog & Fiscal Spending:
Holden calls himself a “Blue-dog” Fiscal conservative Democrat - which is an organized coalition within the Democratic party to reduce out of control spending, it was created in 1994 to be the middleman between Liberal Democrats, and Republicans in congress. However Tim was the first Blue-dog who voted for the Stimulus package without any pressure from Democratic Leaders in congress. Just 2 weeks ago Holden made the front page of the Republican Herald for being the deciding vote and only Blue-dog to vote to adjure session and come home early which will allow the Bush Tax cuts to expire. With this vote: Holden now is over 96% in line with Nancy Pelosi since she had taken over the Speaker roll. Dave Argall has always been fiscally conservative, he supports a balanced budget, and even headed a team to find hidden spending in the state budget.
Size of Government & Health care:
Tim Holden once represented us, but over the last several years he has begun to represent the Liberal Agenda of NY and CA. Dave on the other hand is in favor of Smaller role in Government, repealing the health care bill to work out compromise where necessary. Tim Holden on the other hand voted Against the final bill once it had obtained the needed votes to pass, but previously he voted “yes” 4 times to allow the bill up for vote rather than to hold off longer and look for common ground between the two parties. He also has voted several times since to uphold challenged portions of the Health Care Law, and has refused to sign the Petition in Congress to repeal the bill, to work on a more effective compromise.
Boarders & Security:
Dave Argall supports the Arizona Immigration Law and supported Legislation in the state which would fight against Illegal immigrants for living and working in PA, the bill would focus on Employers who hire workers without any proof of citizenship, as well as push to convict Aliens who are under arrest for other crimes to be sent back to the country in which they have immigrated from. Including countries around the world, nor just from the south. Tim once criticized the Obama Administration for getting involved in Hazleton PA, for getting involved with local issues; but now would not commit to legislation designed to protect our boarders.
On many issues the choice is pretty clear, if you are Conservative or Liberal you may see a huge contrast between the candidates.
I hope this information is Helpful!
Volunteer for Argall for Congress
Both candidates represent Schuylkill County, a county which has not been represented by a republican in the house of representatives since the 1960's!
Abortion:
Tim Holden has been in office for 18 years as a congressmen, and has touted a pro-life rating of 100% up until 2006. In August 2007 according to National Right to Life, Tim Holden soiled his pro-life record be voting against the Pro-life movement for the very first time. Since then he has been going back and forth across the fence voting pro-choice on 10 additional occasions. More importantly on 3 separate occassions he would have been the deciding vote to block pro-choice legislation and opted out of voting. Dave on the other hand has been fighting for pro-life legislation.
Term Limits:
Tim once fought had for term limits, now that he has been in office for 18 years, he is no longer in favor of term limits, which is one of the campaign promises he swore to fight for 18 years ago. Dave Argall on the other hand supports term limits and agrees with what Tim had started 18 years ago, without limits the legislators become disconnected with the people and eventually become corrupt.
Spending:
According to Citizens Against Government Waste: Tim Holden has a 3% for voting against Wasteful spending in congress since 2009. This brings his career down to only 18% which puts him on the bottom tier of candidates for preventing Government waste. Meanwhile Dave Argall was just one of a few Republicans in the State senate to vote against the PA state budget for 2010, saying there is too much spending waste in the bill, and recently the many Democrats in Governors executive branch are predicting that there isn't enough of money to cover the budget, and this is why Rendell attacked Corbett claiming that he will have to raise taxes.
Blue-Dog & Fiscal Spending:
Holden calls himself a “Blue-dog” Fiscal conservative Democrat - which is an organized coalition within the Democratic party to reduce out of control spending, it was created in 1994 to be the middleman between Liberal Democrats, and Republicans in congress. However Tim was the first Blue-dog who voted for the Stimulus package without any pressure from Democratic Leaders in congress. Just 2 weeks ago Holden made the front page of the Republican Herald for being the deciding vote and only Blue-dog to vote to adjure session and come home early which will allow the Bush Tax cuts to expire. With this vote: Holden now is over 96% in line with Nancy Pelosi since she had taken over the Speaker roll. Dave Argall has always been fiscally conservative, he supports a balanced budget, and even headed a team to find hidden spending in the state budget.
Size of Government & Health care:
Tim Holden once represented us, but over the last several years he has begun to represent the Liberal Agenda of NY and CA. Dave on the other hand is in favor of Smaller role in Government, repealing the health care bill to work out compromise where necessary. Tim Holden on the other hand voted Against the final bill once it had obtained the needed votes to pass, but previously he voted “yes” 4 times to allow the bill up for vote rather than to hold off longer and look for common ground between the two parties. He also has voted several times since to uphold challenged portions of the Health Care Law, and has refused to sign the Petition in Congress to repeal the bill, to work on a more effective compromise.
Boarders & Security:
Dave Argall supports the Arizona Immigration Law and supported Legislation in the state which would fight against Illegal immigrants for living and working in PA, the bill would focus on Employers who hire workers without any proof of citizenship, as well as push to convict Aliens who are under arrest for other crimes to be sent back to the country in which they have immigrated from. Including countries around the world, nor just from the south. Tim once criticized the Obama Administration for getting involved in Hazleton PA, for getting involved with local issues; but now would not commit to legislation designed to protect our boarders.
On many issues the choice is pretty clear, if you are Conservative or Liberal you may see a huge contrast between the candidates.
I hope this information is Helpful!
Volunteer for Argall for Congress
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Blue Dog Coalition ~ Tail of Fiscal Conservative Reform
Nine term Congressman Tim Holden on PA-17 is a member of the Fiscal conservative Democrat Blue-dog coalition - which is an organized coalition within the Democratic party to reduce out of control spending. Created in 1994 it was to become the middleman between Liberal Democrats, and Republicans in congress.
Tim Holden was one of the first Blue-dogs who voted for the Stimulus package without any pressure from Democratic Leaders in congress. How is increasing debt going to help out economy?
According to Citizens Against Government Waste: Tim Holden has a 3% for voting against Wasteful spending in congress since 2009. This brings his career down to only 18% which puts him on the bottom tear of candidates for preventing Government waste. What happened to being fiscally responsible?
Just 2 weeks ago Holden made the front page of the Republican Herald for being the deciding vote and only Blue-dog to vote to adjure session and come home early; which will allow the Bush Tax cuts to expire. How will this tax increase on many businesses help companies expand and hire new workers, with our unemployment at 9.6%?
Tim Holden voted himself a pay raise 4 times, and even when he did not, he still accepted the money. From 97-2009 Tim’s salary has increased nearly 40K!
Tim has been in office for 18 years touting a pro-life rating of 100% up until 2006. In August 2007 according to National Right to Life, Tim Holden soiled his pro-life record be voting against the Pro-life movement for the very first time. Since then he has been going back and forth across the fence voting pro-choice on 10 additional occasions. More importantly on 3 separate occasions he would have been the deciding vote to either block pro-choice legislation or to support pro-life legislation and opted out of voting.
Holden now is over 96% in line with Speaker Nancy Pelosi since she had taken over the Speaker roll. How is this moderating between the two parties?
It is time that the Conservative on the PA-17th district stand up in unity behind a true Conservative. State Senator Dave Argall has proven time and time again that he is a true Conservative. He was one of a just a select few senators to vote against the current state budget because of the millions of dollars of wasteful spending! Now the budget looks to be under funded. He is pro life, and in favor of term limits. He signed a pledge not to raise taxes. He is in favor of the Bush tax cuts, and would like to find a way to make taxes more fair. When he has made mistakes in the past, he went and corrected them. Many politicians give themselves pay raises, but how many of them go and repeal the pay raise before it comes into effect? Not many.
Sen. DAVE ARGALL For CONGRESS PA-17
Tim Holden was one of the first Blue-dogs who voted for the Stimulus package without any pressure from Democratic Leaders in congress. How is increasing debt going to help out economy?
According to Citizens Against Government Waste: Tim Holden has a 3% for voting against Wasteful spending in congress since 2009. This brings his career down to only 18% which puts him on the bottom tear of candidates for preventing Government waste. What happened to being fiscally responsible?
Just 2 weeks ago Holden made the front page of the Republican Herald for being the deciding vote and only Blue-dog to vote to adjure session and come home early; which will allow the Bush Tax cuts to expire. How will this tax increase on many businesses help companies expand and hire new workers, with our unemployment at 9.6%?
Tim Holden voted himself a pay raise 4 times, and even when he did not, he still accepted the money. From 97-2009 Tim’s salary has increased nearly 40K!
Tim has been in office for 18 years touting a pro-life rating of 100% up until 2006. In August 2007 according to National Right to Life, Tim Holden soiled his pro-life record be voting against the Pro-life movement for the very first time. Since then he has been going back and forth across the fence voting pro-choice on 10 additional occasions. More importantly on 3 separate occasions he would have been the deciding vote to either block pro-choice legislation or to support pro-life legislation and opted out of voting.
Holden now is over 96% in line with Speaker Nancy Pelosi since she had taken over the Speaker roll. How is this moderating between the two parties?
It is time that the Conservative on the PA-17th district stand up in unity behind a true Conservative. State Senator Dave Argall has proven time and time again that he is a true Conservative. He was one of a just a select few senators to vote against the current state budget because of the millions of dollars of wasteful spending! Now the budget looks to be under funded. He is pro life, and in favor of term limits. He signed a pledge not to raise taxes. He is in favor of the Bush tax cuts, and would like to find a way to make taxes more fair. When he has made mistakes in the past, he went and corrected them. Many politicians give themselves pay raises, but how many of them go and repeal the pay raise before it comes into effect? Not many.
It is time we send someone to Washington who will represent US, and NOT Nancy Pelosi!
Sen. DAVE ARGALL For CONGRESS PA-17
Polling is key
Based off of some Face Book advertisement poll I clicked on, i would be 77% support of Florida Independent Senate candidate Charlie Crist and 69% in support of Tea Party Republican Senate candidate Marco Rubio. Democratic candidate Meek wouldn't reach high enough for it to give me a percentage.
I think the polled questioned heavily asked about Libertarian questions in which neither candidate scored high on, but were designed to give points to Meek and Crist depending on how you voted. I do not know. Trust is a huge factor for me, and that is not measured on a poll, with the fact Crist has changed his mind about several key issues to me i think these same questions may be a different outcome next month. so i would lean towards Rubio if i were voting in FL.
I've mentioned this months ago - Polling is designed to get voters to agree with the pollster, not the get the opinion of the person being polled.
Today i got a phone call from OTR (later i researched to find out this was Yale, and this was an official Quinnipiac Poll for PA)
They asked me my name. Asked me if i still lived at such and such college dorm address, i can not believe you are calling me on my cell phone and asking me if i live in the same dorm room as i did 2 years ago -- address. Of course, i said yes. Because this lie right here is what makes polling great. You just never know who or what you are calling.
They asked me if me or my family worked for any elected official, are working on any campaigns, or work for the news media. (don’t say yes, don’t say yes) Yes I said.
They thanked me for my time and told me that was the conclusion of the poll. I asked them quick enough to prevent them from hanging up, that if i said no would they have asked me about the upcoming election (obviously) they said yes. This is the simplified version actually: the truth is, there was a lot of “umms” and pauses and awkward fumbles and slip up on her end, she did not feel comfortable on the phone calling me, and i not her. This poll came off as amateur. Will be more than interested in finding out the outcome of this poll over the next few days.
I was listening in on, trying to see if i recognized a voice in the background from the blocked number that had called my cell phone, believing at first that it may have been a local political hack.
Here is a point: This group was getting cell phone numbers from out dated college dorm rooms. As far as i know that dorm building is either being torn down, or this is its last year. But on the flip side some pollsters don’t even call cell phones at all, and the Liberal media points out that there is a 4% advantage of Democrats to Republicans using cell phones. I think part of the advantage might just be the fact that younger people might pick up blocked phone calls without screening the call. But who knows, someone will figure out what the ratio of landline and cell phone is per district and also try to factor that in which everything else when manipulating the numbers of a poll.
I think the polled questioned heavily asked about Libertarian questions in which neither candidate scored high on, but were designed to give points to Meek and Crist depending on how you voted. I do not know. Trust is a huge factor for me, and that is not measured on a poll, with the fact Crist has changed his mind about several key issues to me i think these same questions may be a different outcome next month. so i would lean towards Rubio if i were voting in FL.
I've mentioned this months ago - Polling is designed to get voters to agree with the pollster, not the get the opinion of the person being polled.
Today i got a phone call from OTR (later i researched to find out this was Yale, and this was an official Quinnipiac Poll for PA)
They asked me my name. Asked me if i still lived at such and such college dorm address, i can not believe you are calling me on my cell phone and asking me if i live in the same dorm room as i did 2 years ago -- address. Of course, i said yes. Because this lie right here is what makes polling great. You just never know who or what you are calling.
They asked me if me or my family worked for any elected official, are working on any campaigns, or work for the news media. (don’t say yes, don’t say yes) Yes I said.
They thanked me for my time and told me that was the conclusion of the poll. I asked them quick enough to prevent them from hanging up, that if i said no would they have asked me about the upcoming election (obviously) they said yes. This is the simplified version actually: the truth is, there was a lot of “umms” and pauses and awkward fumbles and slip up on her end, she did not feel comfortable on the phone calling me, and i not her. This poll came off as amateur. Will be more than interested in finding out the outcome of this poll over the next few days.
I was listening in on, trying to see if i recognized a voice in the background from the blocked number that had called my cell phone, believing at first that it may have been a local political hack.
Here is a point: This group was getting cell phone numbers from out dated college dorm rooms. As far as i know that dorm building is either being torn down, or this is its last year. But on the flip side some pollsters don’t even call cell phones at all, and the Liberal media points out that there is a 4% advantage of Democrats to Republicans using cell phones. I think part of the advantage might just be the fact that younger people might pick up blocked phone calls without screening the call. But who knows, someone will figure out what the ratio of landline and cell phone is per district and also try to factor that in which everything else when manipulating the numbers of a poll.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Voter Identification [Party ID by state]
Now before we discus the issue of Voter Identification by Party, it is important to mention that there are 2 ways for a state to change: a state could loss voters registered to a party, or the state could gain voters registered to the opposing party.
When dealing with Voter identification: Gallup does the most polling for individual states so we will refer to Gallup. Also the categories are Strong Democrat or Strong Republican(which is a +10% advantage)
Leans Democrat or Leans Republican (which is a 5-10% advantage)
Toss Up (States are Less than 5% of voter registration advantage)
Now these polls are done between 2 and 4 times a year and do shift a little from year to year, i know if i pulled the December 2009 polling you would see the process in which states have lost registration to the Democratic party over the past year in a more accurate mean, you would notice about half of the states pull towards the right during the 2009 elections, but you would also find a couple states veering towards the left. For such purposes i will only be comparing Summer of 2009 to summer of 2010 Voter Identification in order to show the movement over the past year.
Gallup Party Voter ID advantage summer 2009
anything in (brackets-- with a number tells you how many columns the state has moved from 2009 to 2010)
Gallup Party Voter ID advantage summer 2010
Republican Gains in Voter Identification
When dealing with Voter identification: Gallup does the most polling for individual states so we will refer to Gallup. Also the categories are Strong Democrat or Strong Republican(which is a +10% advantage)
Leans Democrat or Leans Republican (which is a 5-10% advantage)
Toss Up (States are Less than 5% of voter registration advantage)
Now these polls are done between 2 and 4 times a year and do shift a little from year to year, i know if i pulled the December 2009 polling you would see the process in which states have lost registration to the Democratic party over the past year in a more accurate mean, you would notice about half of the states pull towards the right during the 2009 elections, but you would also find a couple states veering towards the left. For such purposes i will only be comparing Summer of 2009 to summer of 2010 Voter Identification in order to show the movement over the past year.
Gallup Party Voter ID advantage summer 2009
| Strong Dem | Lean Dem | TossUP | Strong Rep | Lean Rep |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA, OR, NM, IL, MD, DE, NY, NJ, CT, RI, MA, VT, HI, NV, WA, IA, MO, AR, MI, WI, OH, KY, WV, NC, PA, NH, ME | OK, LA, TN, FL, VA, IN | ND, TX, MS, GA, AZ, MT, SD, KS, AL, SC | NE | UT, AK, WY, ID |
anything in (brackets-- with a number tells you how many columns the state has moved from 2009 to 2010)
Gallup Party Voter ID advantage summer 2010
| Strong Dem | Lean Dem | TossUP | Strong Rep | Lean Rep |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA, OR, NM, IL, MD, DE, NY, NJ, CT, RI, MA, VT, HI | WA, NV, WI, MI, OH, KY, PA, WV, ME | ND, TX, MS, GA, CO, OK, MN, IA, MO, AR, LA, IN, TN, VA, NC, FL | AZ, NH, SD, AL, SC | UT, AK, WY, ID, MT, NE, KS |
Republican Gains in Voter Identification
| Small shift (5-10%) | Midium Shift (10-15%) | Large Shift (+15%) |
|---|---|---|
| NE, AZ, SD, SC, AL, NC, VA, TN, IN, LA, OK, ME, WV, PA, OH, MI, NV, WA, KY, WI | MT, KS, CO, MN, IA, MO, AR, FL | NH |
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Ahh Politics... or Eh Politics!
Over the past month we have seen some interesting movement along most of the races across this country!
The number of people who had decided not to vote has increased 1% now up to about 3% of people surveyed while the number of voters voting 3rd party has decreased by about 1% now down to about 3%.
This is not the big surprise here: For months the Republicans gathered much support over Democrats with independent voters, but many polls have come our recently showing the democrat either cutting into that group, or actually advancing and taking the lead for independents! However the polls continue to shift Democrats have only capitalized in a few races: in Kentucky the Democrats are making the race competitive, in Florida the Republican governor turned independent is taking a lead over his old primary challenger, while in Nevada Harry Reid has taken 3 of the last 4 polls showing him beating Tea Party- Republican Angel (Now just in the Independent Tea Party group and the American Independent Parties would just drop out of the race -- independents get up to 9% in many polls in NV)!
However: throughout most of the country while democrats are doing a good job getting some of those Obama voters who leaned Republican for the past year to switch to lean Democrat over the last few weeks as the summer campaigns have taken shape; what is keeping these races in check is the small increase of Democrats who have switched from Democrat to Republican. Depending on the race the numbers range from 1-3%, but when you consider that number is doubled for the vote swing, that there is keeping republicans slightly ahead of Democrats right now. There is no guarantee that most or all of these democrats will continue to support the republican, so it is very important that republicans reach out to independents and moderates, not by policy and becoming moderates, but by not coming across as being right wing extremist.
Over the past month Democrats have lost about 2% while Republicans stay about the same and loss almost 1%. All Parties and candidates have taken a dip over the month of July, and i believe we will continue to watch his election cycle take shape over the summer.
Example of how the races are moving: Florida Senate race:
Down in Florida Gov Charlie Crist is helped out by name recognition for being a current Political figure, but over the past 3 months he went from trying to appeal to Conservatives to trying to appeal to Liberals; politically he is running a terrible campaign, but so far he is in the lead in a 3 way race between Conservative Tea Party Republican who easily knocked Crist out of the republican primary, and both of his democratic choices. There are Four things I want voters to consider while looking at these polls showing Crist up between 5-7 points:
1. Many voters on election day who support 3rd party candidates change their mind and just vote strait ticket, younger and senior voters especially. This may hurt Christ among 50% of democrats who may be supporting him thus far and 30% of republicans.
2. Democratic Primary has yet to confirm a democratic nominee, choices are between a well funded not liked liberal, and not so well funded moderate-liberal. Who ever gets the nomination would be able to work at siphoning some of the democratic voters away form Crist and back to the Democratic ticket if they can prove to be a viable candidate.
3. The swing of Conservative - Moderate - Liberal - Libertarian nationally polls since 2008 have Conservatives out numbering Moderates, while Liberal fallen a few points after their historic high during the 08 election. The latest Polls show Conservatives 42% Moderates 35% Liberal 20% other ~4%. If Democrats continue to poll around 15-20% of the vote than Crist who man be seen as the moderate may be getting the falloff support, but if the democrats can reach 25% Crist may be in trouble.
4. Libertarian Candidate who is supported by several tea party groups is more of a Conservative Libertarian, and may take in 5% of the vote. After the Libertarian support dropped 60% (48% Brown supporters 12% Martha) in MA special election to ensure Scot Brown would prevent a new Healthcare bill from being passed, and the Government pushed an older passed bill through the house instead: There has been a huge push in the Libertarian Party to prevent Libertarians from choosing between the two parties. If Libertarian voters split in a similar fashion for Rubio over Crist (especially with many of them tea party or 9/12 supporters) That may give Rubio the push he needs in the end, but if these voters continue to grow and pull support away from the once Tea Party Favorite it will almost make it impossible for Rubio to win. Rubio needed the tea party movement to beat Crist in the republican primary, without them in the general election he can not win.
These is still a lot of time between now and November, especially in those few days in November.
The number of people who had decided not to vote has increased 1% now up to about 3% of people surveyed while the number of voters voting 3rd party has decreased by about 1% now down to about 3%.
This is not the big surprise here: For months the Republicans gathered much support over Democrats with independent voters, but many polls have come our recently showing the democrat either cutting into that group, or actually advancing and taking the lead for independents! However the polls continue to shift Democrats have only capitalized in a few races: in Kentucky the Democrats are making the race competitive, in Florida the Republican governor turned independent is taking a lead over his old primary challenger, while in Nevada Harry Reid has taken 3 of the last 4 polls showing him beating Tea Party- Republican Angel (Now just in the Independent Tea Party group and the American Independent Parties would just drop out of the race -- independents get up to 9% in many polls in NV)!
However: throughout most of the country while democrats are doing a good job getting some of those Obama voters who leaned Republican for the past year to switch to lean Democrat over the last few weeks as the summer campaigns have taken shape; what is keeping these races in check is the small increase of Democrats who have switched from Democrat to Republican. Depending on the race the numbers range from 1-3%, but when you consider that number is doubled for the vote swing, that there is keeping republicans slightly ahead of Democrats right now. There is no guarantee that most or all of these democrats will continue to support the republican, so it is very important that republicans reach out to independents and moderates, not by policy and becoming moderates, but by not coming across as being right wing extremist.
Over the past month Democrats have lost about 2% while Republicans stay about the same and loss almost 1%. All Parties and candidates have taken a dip over the month of July, and i believe we will continue to watch his election cycle take shape over the summer.
Example of how the races are moving: Florida Senate race:
Down in Florida Gov Charlie Crist is helped out by name recognition for being a current Political figure, but over the past 3 months he went from trying to appeal to Conservatives to trying to appeal to Liberals; politically he is running a terrible campaign, but so far he is in the lead in a 3 way race between Conservative Tea Party Republican who easily knocked Crist out of the republican primary, and both of his democratic choices. There are Four things I want voters to consider while looking at these polls showing Crist up between 5-7 points:
1. Many voters on election day who support 3rd party candidates change their mind and just vote strait ticket, younger and senior voters especially. This may hurt Christ among 50% of democrats who may be supporting him thus far and 30% of republicans.
2. Democratic Primary has yet to confirm a democratic nominee, choices are between a well funded not liked liberal, and not so well funded moderate-liberal. Who ever gets the nomination would be able to work at siphoning some of the democratic voters away form Crist and back to the Democratic ticket if they can prove to be a viable candidate.
3. The swing of Conservative - Moderate - Liberal - Libertarian nationally polls since 2008 have Conservatives out numbering Moderates, while Liberal fallen a few points after their historic high during the 08 election. The latest Polls show Conservatives 42% Moderates 35% Liberal 20% other ~4%. If Democrats continue to poll around 15-20% of the vote than Crist who man be seen as the moderate may be getting the falloff support, but if the democrats can reach 25% Crist may be in trouble.
4. Libertarian Candidate who is supported by several tea party groups is more of a Conservative Libertarian, and may take in 5% of the vote. After the Libertarian support dropped 60% (48% Brown supporters 12% Martha) in MA special election to ensure Scot Brown would prevent a new Healthcare bill from being passed, and the Government pushed an older passed bill through the house instead: There has been a huge push in the Libertarian Party to prevent Libertarians from choosing between the two parties. If Libertarian voters split in a similar fashion for Rubio over Crist (especially with many of them tea party or 9/12 supporters) That may give Rubio the push he needs in the end, but if these voters continue to grow and pull support away from the once Tea Party Favorite it will almost make it impossible for Rubio to win. Rubio needed the tea party movement to beat Crist in the republican primary, without them in the general election he can not win.
These is still a lot of time between now and November, especially in those few days in November.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
PA Governor - Out Spoken Liberty: Sam Rohrer
In the Pennsylvania Governor Primary (May 18th) I only had one option:
Sam Rohrer. His campaign of grass roots efforts may have hindered his name recognition, but everywhere Sam goes, favorable recognition shortly follows. Sam has been consistent with one thing: Being out spoken about Liberty, and applying pressure on Conservative issues, which are dear to Central PA voters and Christians especially. Sam hasn't sunk down to negative ads, and has even ignored questions and opportunities to attack his opponent Corbett, who hasn't been so kind, or conservative. Right now there is a wave of Republicans who think they understand the Tea Party message and are running on a more fiscal message this time around, and look uncomfortable while doing so. These candidates not only stick out like a sore thumb, but more likely will go back to main-stream Republican tendencies in a matter of time. The Tea Party job wasn't only to get Established Republicans and RINOS to think more fiscally responsible and conservatively minded, but it is also a movement to bring in fresh candidates who have stood true to such principles off the campaign trail.
Sam Rohrer. His campaign of grass roots efforts may have hindered his name recognition, but everywhere Sam goes, favorable recognition shortly follows. Sam has been consistent with one thing: Being out spoken about Liberty, and applying pressure on Conservative issues, which are dear to Central PA voters and Christians especially. Sam hasn't sunk down to negative ads, and has even ignored questions and opportunities to attack his opponent Corbett, who hasn't been so kind, or conservative. Right now there is a wave of Republicans who think they understand the Tea Party message and are running on a more fiscal message this time around, and look uncomfortable while doing so. These candidates not only stick out like a sore thumb, but more likely will go back to main-stream Republican tendencies in a matter of time. The Tea Party job wasn't only to get Established Republicans and RINOS to think more fiscally responsible and conservatively minded, but it is also a movement to bring in fresh candidates who have stood true to such principles off the campaign trail.
Sam Rohrer for Republican Governor
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Being a Christian
Not living the walk and being a Christian in Name Only, is like being a Conservative or Republican in Name Only; in the end of the day after campaigning for God given Liberty, you find yourself supporting a secular philosophy, and replace a world of life and abundance with something of post modernism and progressivism that taste good to the senses and flesh in the here and now, while starving the soul from God's grace. There is nothing worse than being in the presence of God himself and returning to the way of sin! God have mercy on us! For our flesh cries out for pleasures of this world, while our spirit is suffocating and needs you to breathe into us again to give us life anew!
Friday, April 30, 2010
PA-17 - 4 man race in the Republican Primay
As you are probably well aware, in my last blog i endorsed Tim Holden (D) over challenger Shelia Dow-Ford (D) in the Districts Democratic Primary.
The polls are showing a though but likely win for State Sen. David Argall(R)if the polls are accurate and the election were held today, with Ryan Frank(R) campaign right behind him. Both of these candidates bring great aspects to run against Inc. Rep Tim Holden(D). Although it is easy for someone to get caught up in the numbers games right away, i am trying to separate Speculation and polls, in order to Support and endorse the candidate i think is best for this District, Pennsylvania, and the United States of America collectively.
During the Presidential Republican Primary i was in the same boat, When the media was battling between Sen. McCain and Gov Romney i wasn't satisfied with either candidate, and stood by Gov Huckabee until the very end. I find myself in a similar situation. Backing the candidate who is polled in 3rd place among registered voters, and is within an arms race in this competitive race. At this point i am confident that either Republican candidate who is able to finish on top of the primary will be strong enough to go against the Democrat favorite Rep Tim Holden competitively, and be capable of defeating Shelia Dow-Ford in a hypothetical match up.
As a Christian i think it is really important that we put in candidates into Office who put both politics and religion aside in order to just get done on their face and give every day to God. Someone who believes Government is important, but not the absolute solution. Someone who will pray for the people of the nation, rather than limit and prevent others from doing so.
My #1 issue as a voter has been: Abortion. I proudly endorse ALLEN GRIFFITH for PA-17 congressional district. He respects all life, and loves all people with God's love. And as a sign to my support and loyalty, I have volunteered for his campaign.
Although i am aware that is possible that Allen Griffith may not win the primary, i am hoping that he will get the exposure he needs in order to win, but if this doesn't happen i am willing to support the candidate who does.
The polls are showing a though but likely win for State Sen. David Argall(R)if the polls are accurate and the election were held today, with Ryan Frank(R) campaign right behind him. Both of these candidates bring great aspects to run against Inc. Rep Tim Holden(D). Although it is easy for someone to get caught up in the numbers games right away, i am trying to separate Speculation and polls, in order to Support and endorse the candidate i think is best for this District, Pennsylvania, and the United States of America collectively.
During the Presidential Republican Primary i was in the same boat, When the media was battling between Sen. McCain and Gov Romney i wasn't satisfied with either candidate, and stood by Gov Huckabee until the very end. I find myself in a similar situation. Backing the candidate who is polled in 3rd place among registered voters, and is within an arms race in this competitive race. At this point i am confident that either Republican candidate who is able to finish on top of the primary will be strong enough to go against the Democrat favorite Rep Tim Holden competitively, and be capable of defeating Shelia Dow-Ford in a hypothetical match up.
As a Christian i think it is really important that we put in candidates into Office who put both politics and religion aside in order to just get done on their face and give every day to God. Someone who believes Government is important, but not the absolute solution. Someone who will pray for the people of the nation, rather than limit and prevent others from doing so.
My #1 issue as a voter has been: Abortion. I proudly endorse ALLEN GRIFFITH for PA-17 congressional district. He respects all life, and loves all people with God's love. And as a sign to my support and loyalty, I have volunteered for his campaign.
Although i am aware that is possible that Allen Griffith may not win the primary, i am hoping that he will get the exposure he needs in order to win, but if this doesn't happen i am willing to support the candidate who does.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Home town Congressional District (PA-17)
In PA-17: Tim Holden(D) *Blue Dog Conservative, who is attacked as being a Democrat in Name only from the left, and a Conservative in name only from the right, is in his most exciting re-election of his career.
Holden has voted twice against the Obama-care healthcare vote, his reasoning was that he would not vote for any bill that could possibly support abortions. This middle talk was great for Conservative “Pro-lifers” in Central PA, however it wasn’t conservative enough for many republicans, and was too damaging for the Liberal bass of the Democratic Base who has set a Liberal Challenger Sheila Dow-Ford to face Holden in the Republican leaning district. Since splitting with the Democratic party over Healthcare, the AFL-CIO has stripped Holden of endorsement and has endorsed Dow-Ford.
- The Establishment in PA politics has Dave Argall as the Republican Nominee who could challenge Holden for his hot seat come November. Argall has quickly jumped from PA congress to PA Senate after the death of Sen. Rhoades, who had served our region with great pride and respect. He has the backing of the State GOP as well as positive news coverage, as active State Rep he has the largest on ground team across the district. His signs can be seen scattered across the entire district.
However, 3 candidates have all surged throughout PA17. However with the backing Argall of the media, and the state GOP, the counties in the district so far have opted out of endorsing any candidate over the other.
- Frank Ryan, is a retired Marian Corp and small businessman, who ran in the republican primary in 2004 for the seat, talking about fiscal responsibility prior to the economic turmoil. He has the country areas of Schuylkill country wall papered with his yard signs. He has a great Historic and political understanding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
- Allen Griffith, is a retired minister who is fighting for the foundational principles of Country. He focuses on state rights, and small federal government. He believes our Federal role is to protect its citizens, not to simply provide.
- Josh First, is a Washington businessman who is the President and CEO of Appalachian Land & Conservation Services Co. He is focusing on the farmland and cultural aspect of central PA.
Tim Holden has a huge advantage in this district when compared with other Democrats, He is conservative, and he lives in Schuylkill County which is one of the larger counties which is fully intake, which is a major chuck of PA-17. Although he has a democratic primary opponent from Harrisburg, He is favored to advance to the general ticket for his 5th run in the 17th district (and 10th term as PA congressman)
However all of his opponents want to know one thing: Tim Holden voted in favor of term limits for a max of 3 terms in congress, so why is it that he is running for his 10th term?
Tim Holden for Democratic nomination
“I here want to make the endorsement: If you are a Democrat or Independent democratic voter: I feel as if Tim Holden the Blue Dog democrat represent major parts of PA17 better than his Democratic primary opponent Dow-Ford. Although Holden is not a perfect match for the Republican leaning district, he has strong mural beliefs against abortion.”
In my next post I will be reviewing the Republican candidates once more over before making my final Republican Nomination for the PA17 district. In approximately 3 weeks I will be making my Formal General Election endorsement for the Congressional race.
Holden has voted twice against the Obama-care healthcare vote, his reasoning was that he would not vote for any bill that could possibly support abortions. This middle talk was great for Conservative “Pro-lifers” in Central PA, however it wasn’t conservative enough for many republicans, and was too damaging for the Liberal bass of the Democratic Base who has set a Liberal Challenger Sheila Dow-Ford to face Holden in the Republican leaning district. Since splitting with the Democratic party over Healthcare, the AFL-CIO has stripped Holden of endorsement and has endorsed Dow-Ford.
- The Establishment in PA politics has Dave Argall as the Republican Nominee who could challenge Holden for his hot seat come November. Argall has quickly jumped from PA congress to PA Senate after the death of Sen. Rhoades, who had served our region with great pride and respect. He has the backing of the State GOP as well as positive news coverage, as active State Rep he has the largest on ground team across the district. His signs can be seen scattered across the entire district.
However, 3 candidates have all surged throughout PA17. However with the backing Argall of the media, and the state GOP, the counties in the district so far have opted out of endorsing any candidate over the other.
- Frank Ryan, is a retired Marian Corp and small businessman, who ran in the republican primary in 2004 for the seat, talking about fiscal responsibility prior to the economic turmoil. He has the country areas of Schuylkill country wall papered with his yard signs. He has a great Historic and political understanding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
- Allen Griffith, is a retired minister who is fighting for the foundational principles of Country. He focuses on state rights, and small federal government. He believes our Federal role is to protect its citizens, not to simply provide.
- Josh First, is a Washington businessman who is the President and CEO of Appalachian Land & Conservation Services Co. He is focusing on the farmland and cultural aspect of central PA.
Tim Holden has a huge advantage in this district when compared with other Democrats, He is conservative, and he lives in Schuylkill County which is one of the larger counties which is fully intake, which is a major chuck of PA-17. Although he has a democratic primary opponent from Harrisburg, He is favored to advance to the general ticket for his 5th run in the 17th district (and 10th term as PA congressman)
However all of his opponents want to know one thing: Tim Holden voted in favor of term limits for a max of 3 terms in congress, so why is it that he is running for his 10th term?
Tim Holden for Democratic nomination
“I here want to make the endorsement: If you are a Democrat or Independent democratic voter: I feel as if Tim Holden the Blue Dog democrat represent major parts of PA17 better than his Democratic primary opponent Dow-Ford. Although Holden is not a perfect match for the Republican leaning district, he has strong mural beliefs against abortion.”
In my next post I will be reviewing the Republican candidates once more over before making my final Republican Nomination for the PA17 district. In approximately 3 weeks I will be making my Formal General Election endorsement for the Congressional race.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
A Right Alternative: Political Survey | 03/08/10-03/11/10 |
I had decided to reach a different audience in polling: I wanted to reach out to those who are constantly on non politically related message boards and forums, and try to find the real independents of America, the kind of people who do not describe themselves a Strong Democrat or Strong Republican and are more likely to become the swing vote in future elections. My method of choice to reach these people: Chatroulette.com the first web-cam chat site where you are randomly connected with stranger, until one of you clicks NEXT and reconnects with someone else.
After Browsing for Americans, it was hard to find Americans who were interested in taking a 2 minute survey about politics over web-cam. Once I found someone willing, I first asked them if they were legally allowed to vote, followed by the question of asking them if they were likely to vote in the upcoming election. To my surprise I only had two people inform me they would not be voting no matter what, and began to share with me why they don’t vote.
In our polling which was roughly made up 75% young voters, and about 25% middle aged voters: Healthcare seems to much more favorable than President Obama. Young voters also seem to be much undecided over the issue of Healthcare. If Republicans try to attack Democrats come November 2010 over the issue of Health Care, I do not see it picking up much support for Young voters, but if they bring up other issues as well, I think they might be able to bring in some support among some voters who voted for President Obama in 2008. Many youth who are eligible to vote in 2010 but were not in 2008 make up almost entirely the group of unregistered voters, only a small sample of registered voters were not eligible to vote in 2008. This young group is heavily leaning Republican come November in this data. This could be real good news for the GOP who has been working hard since the 2008 election to get more involved with young voters.
One thing I want to point out beyond statistics is that many youth voters who talked to me but did not fill out the survey were afraid of “Big-Brother” government, and other conspiracy theories. Only half of those who were African American filled out the survey, those who did voted for Obama, those who said they weren’t voting in 2012 also told me they Disapprove of Obama, and did not vote in 2008 either.
All surveyors were given contact information to my blog: arightalternative.blogspot.com
A Right Alternative | 03/08/10-03/11/10 | 37(LV)
Title: Political Survey
1.Are you currently a registered voter?
2.If yes: Which party are you registered?
3.If yes: Who did you vote for in 2008 for president?
Do you Approve, Disapprove, or are you currently unsure of the following:
4.Obama’s Job Performance?
5.*government run Healthcare Legislation?
6.How do you intend on voting in your state races in 2010: Democrat, Republican, Other?
* Did not specify between the House or Senate Bills.
Are you currently a registered voter?
If yes: Which party are you registered?
If yes: Who did you vote for in 2008 for president?
Do you Approve, Disapprove, or are you currently unsure of the following:
Obama’s Job Performance? (over all)
Obama’s Job Performance? (Reg Voters Only)
Obama’s Job Performance? (Reg Democrats)
Obama’s Job Performance? (Reg Republican)
Obama’s Job Performance? (Reg Ind/3rd-Party)
Obama’s Job Performance? (Not yet registered)
*government run Healthcare Legislation?(over all)
* Did not specify between the House or Senate Bills.
*government run Healthcare Legislation?(Reg Voters Only)
* Did not specify between the House or Senate Bills.
*government run Healthcare Legislation?(Reg Democrats)
* Did not specify between the House or Senate Bills.
*government run Healthcare Legislation?(Reg Republicans)
* Did not specify between the House or Senate Bills.
*government run Healthcare Legislation?(Reg Ind/3rd-Party)
* Did not specify between the House or Senate Bills.
*government run Healthcare Legislation?(Not yet registered)
* Did not specify between the House or Senate Bills.
How do you intend on voting in your state races in 2010: Democrat, Republican, Other? (over all)
How do you intend on voting in your state races in 2010: Democrat, Republican, Other? (Reg Voters Only)
How do you intend on voting in your state races in 2010: Democrat, Republican, Other? (Not yet registered)
How do you intend on voting in your state races in 2010: Democrat, Republican, Other? (Reg Democrats)
How do you intend on voting in your state races in 2010: Democrat, Republican, Other? (Reg Republicans)
How do you intend on voting in your state races in 2010: Democrat, Republican, Other? (Reg Ind/3rd Party)
How do you intend on voting in your state races in 2010: Democrat, Republican, Other? (Voted for Obama in 2008)
How do you intend on voting in your state races in 2010: Democrat, Republican, Other? (Voted for McCain in 2008)
How do you intend on voting in your state races in 2010: Democrat, Republican, Other? (Voted 3rd-Party in 2008)
Survey Conducted by A Right Alternative .blogspot.com
All information is accurate, and there is no confident level rated to this survey due to no accurate information as to how many American users are use Chatroulette.com at the time.
After Browsing for Americans, it was hard to find Americans who were interested in taking a 2 minute survey about politics over web-cam. Once I found someone willing, I first asked them if they were legally allowed to vote, followed by the question of asking them if they were likely to vote in the upcoming election. To my surprise I only had two people inform me they would not be voting no matter what, and began to share with me why they don’t vote.
In our polling which was roughly made up 75% young voters, and about 25% middle aged voters: Healthcare seems to much more favorable than President Obama. Young voters also seem to be much undecided over the issue of Healthcare. If Republicans try to attack Democrats come November 2010 over the issue of Health Care, I do not see it picking up much support for Young voters, but if they bring up other issues as well, I think they might be able to bring in some support among some voters who voted for President Obama in 2008. Many youth who are eligible to vote in 2010 but were not in 2008 make up almost entirely the group of unregistered voters, only a small sample of registered voters were not eligible to vote in 2008. This young group is heavily leaning Republican come November in this data. This could be real good news for the GOP who has been working hard since the 2008 election to get more involved with young voters.
One thing I want to point out beyond statistics is that many youth voters who talked to me but did not fill out the survey were afraid of “Big-Brother” government, and other conspiracy theories. Only half of those who were African American filled out the survey, those who did voted for Obama, those who said they weren’t voting in 2012 also told me they Disapprove of Obama, and did not vote in 2008 either.
All surveyors were given contact information to my blog: arightalternative.blogspot.com
A Right Alternative | 03/08/10-03/11/10 | 37(LV)
Title: Political Survey
1.Are you currently a registered voter?
2.If yes: Which party are you registered?
3.If yes: Who did you vote for in 2008 for president?
Do you Approve, Disapprove, or are you currently unsure of the following:
4.Obama’s Job Performance?
5.*government run Healthcare Legislation?
6.How do you intend on voting in your state races in 2010: Democrat, Republican, Other?
* Did not specify between the House or Senate Bills.
| yes | no |
| 75.6% | 24.3% |
| Democratic | Republican | Ind./3rd Party |
| 42.9% | 32.1% | 25% |
| Obama (D) | McCain (R) | Barr (L) | Baldwin (C) | Not voted |
| 48.2% | 29.6% | 3.7% | 3.7% | 14.8% |
Do you Approve, Disapprove, or are you currently unsure of the following:
| Approve | Disapprove | Unsure |
| 21.6% | 59.5% | 18.9% |
| Approve | Disapprove | Unsure |
| 25% | 53.6% | 21.4% |
| Approve | Disapprove | Unsure |
| 41.7% | 25% | 33.3% |
| Approve | Disapprove | Unsure |
| 0% | 100% | 0% |
| Approve | Disapprove | Unsure |
| 28.6% | 42.8% | 28.6% |
| Approve | Disapprove | Unsure |
| 11.1% | 77.8% | 11.1% |
| Approve | Disapprove | Unsure |
| 32.4% | 46% | 21.6% |
| Approve | Disapprove | Unsure |
| 35.7% | 46.4% | 17.9% |
| Approve | Disapprove | Unsure |
| 50% | 8.3% | 41.7% |
| Approve | Disapprove | Unsure |
| 0% | 100% | 0% |
| Approve | Disapprove | Unsure |
| 57.1% | 42.9% | 0% |
| Approve | Disapprove | Unsure |
| 22.2% | 44.5% | 33.3% |
| Democrat | Republican | Unsure | other |
| 32.5% | 43.2% | 18.9% | 5.4% |
| Democrat | Republican | Unsure | other |
| 35.7% | 35.7% | 21.5% | 7.1% |
| Democrat | Republican | Unsure | other |
| 22.2% | 66.7% | 11.1% | 0% |
| Democrat | Republican | Unsure | other |
| 58.3% | 25% | 8.3% | 8.3% |
| Democrat | Republican | Unsure | other |
| 0% | 77.8% | 11.1% | 11.1% |
| Democrat | Republican | Unsure | other |
| 42.8% | 28.6% | 28.6% | 0% |
| Democrat | Republican | Unsure | other |
| 61.5% | 7.7% | 23.1% | 7.7% |
| Democrat | Republican | Unsure | other |
| 0% | 62.5% | 25% | 12.5% |
| Democrat | Republican | Unsure | other |
| 0% | 100% | 0% | 0% |
Survey Conducted by A Right Alternative .blogspot.com
All information is accurate, and there is no confident level rated to this survey due to no accurate information as to how many American users are use Chatroulette.com at the time.
Monday, March 15, 2010
You wouldn't get a loan to buy a car you don't like and won't use.
You wouldn't get a loan to buy a car you don't like and won't use, please don't vote on a Healthcare bill we do not like. There is a difference between these two points - it isn't the difference between taking out a loan for a car, or dipping into your saving account for health insurance, but who makes the decision. We all want cheaper and better health insurance, because our health system has many flaws and problems to it, also it is in our American dream that we deserve bigger and better no matter what the subject.
The Obama Administration and media for the most part are attacking "Nay" voters as Right-Wing Neo-Conservative Extremist. But the truth is that the democrats have the voters to pass a bill. The argument is that the Republicans now have 41 voters, but they do not explain that they already passed the HC bill when republican only had 40 votes the day prior to MA Senator Scot Brown was sworn in.
So what is the Problem? There is a conflict of interest between Liberals and Loyal Democrats. The Democrats want to pass the Dec 2009 bill that was passed in the Senate in the House: then to vote to make amendments to it. The argument is: Healthcare will not pass in the Senate again.
Well if i were strong Democrat who trusted the party: which they probably are trying to do, that would be enough for me. Support the bill, and change it, right?
Wrong!
Americans have two general options
1.) Democratic View: Spend a lot of money, get a lot of stuff done.
2.) Republican View: Spend little money, and try to fix some of the problems.
Obviously 2 extremes.
The Obama Compromise? Spend a lot of money, and try to fix some of the problems.
The curent bill not liked by: President Obama, his administration, the house, the democratic voter block, and American public.
The Liberals in the Party want to see a Public Option, as well and increased Medicare and abortions. Without the Public option a trillion plus dollar healthcare bill isn't going to bring in much results.
The Blue-dog Conservatives and some moderate Democrats want to see less spending, and abortion limitations.
So if we trust that the Obama Administration to pass a near 2trillion dollar health care bill on a bill that both Liberal and Conservatives agree are at the very point of moderation between the two school of thought that it wouldn't help but hurt the healthcare situation in the country; and we try to amend the bill after it is signed into law, then how does the bill get amended?
The senate says they can't vote on a better bill now as it is? How do we amend it if it will be voted down in the senate? The Argument to pass the bill is simply just that of - YES WE CAN pass this bill, not a VOTE FOR CHANGE.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I actually have something in the works: I have been doing my own political surveys: I found a way to survey the "stereo typical" person who was either a independents, swing voters, and young voters from the past 2008 election to get their opinions on the job of the president, and healthcare.
I am about half way done my goal of surveys: and i am actually shocked with some of my results and many of the conversation with real Americans most of which are frustrated right now with the entire political spectrum.
The Obama Administration and media for the most part are attacking "Nay" voters as Right-Wing Neo-Conservative Extremist. But the truth is that the democrats have the voters to pass a bill. The argument is that the Republicans now have 41 voters, but they do not explain that they already passed the HC bill when republican only had 40 votes the day prior to MA Senator Scot Brown was sworn in.
So what is the Problem? There is a conflict of interest between Liberals and Loyal Democrats. The Democrats want to pass the Dec 2009 bill that was passed in the Senate in the House: then to vote to make amendments to it. The argument is: Healthcare will not pass in the Senate again.
Well if i were strong Democrat who trusted the party: which they probably are trying to do, that would be enough for me. Support the bill, and change it, right?
Wrong!
Americans have two general options
1.) Democratic View: Spend a lot of money, get a lot of stuff done.
2.) Republican View: Spend little money, and try to fix some of the problems.
Obviously 2 extremes.
The Obama Compromise? Spend a lot of money, and try to fix some of the problems.
The curent bill not liked by: President Obama, his administration, the house, the democratic voter block, and American public.
The Liberals in the Party want to see a Public Option, as well and increased Medicare and abortions. Without the Public option a trillion plus dollar healthcare bill isn't going to bring in much results.
The Blue-dog Conservatives and some moderate Democrats want to see less spending, and abortion limitations.
So if we trust that the Obama Administration to pass a near 2trillion dollar health care bill on a bill that both Liberal and Conservatives agree are at the very point of moderation between the two school of thought that it wouldn't help but hurt the healthcare situation in the country; and we try to amend the bill after it is signed into law, then how does the bill get amended?
The senate says they can't vote on a better bill now as it is? How do we amend it if it will be voted down in the senate? The Argument to pass the bill is simply just that of - YES WE CAN pass this bill, not a VOTE FOR CHANGE.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I actually have something in the works: I have been doing my own political surveys: I found a way to survey the "stereo typical" person who was either a independents, swing voters, and young voters from the past 2008 election to get their opinions on the job of the president, and healthcare.
I am about half way done my goal of surveys: and i am actually shocked with some of my results and many of the conversation with real Americans most of which are frustrated right now with the entire political spectrum.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Polling Data vs Polling figures
If you are gearing up for an upcoming election the thing you often times look for to get an idea how the race is going to result is polling data.
I cannot say that i have a degree in election polling, but i can say that i did get involved first hand with political polling in the 2008 election once, both for PA and DE. Being the person on the end of the phone who bothered you while you were eating or running out the door, you see things a little bit differently.
The standard size polling data is often time 500 sample, however is small states like Delaware for example 280-350 is good enough for qualifications. The Poll must reach a percent of the state population, as well as an equal proportion in the poll in each county or district as the state population. The poll must also reach general stereotype of the region, for example if an area is mostly elderly people the polling data should reflect that. If it is a college town, is should reflect the younger age group. If you are in an inner city you should have higher numbers of minorities such as blacks or Hispanics depending on where you are sampling. Your sample size should also be similar with male to female ratio of the state and areas of polling. Now do all polls do a good job at this, for the most part yes, but sometimes they do slip up on some of these voter blocks in some data. To some degree it can be forgiven, in others it can not. But you get the point.
A controversial figure has to do with how calls are conducted: if it is a robo call many people are more likely to conduct the survey to an automatic message, but there is always risk of less serious responses.
In a person to person call: the person conducting the survey can convince you to choose one answer over the other. Also the way questions are asked or read off can push you to answer one way over the other.
-enough of that: its time to get onto the tricks that polling has come up with to mislead its raw data.
we are going to look at the RCP average for President Obama's Approval vs disapproval ratings:
RCP Average [2/17 - 3/4] -- [48.7] [45.7] = [+3.0]
Gallup [3/2 - 3/4] [1547 A] [50] [44] = [+6]
Rasmussen Reports [3/2 - 3/4] [1500 LV] [46] [53] = [-7]
Ipsos/McClatchy [2/26 - 2/28] [1076 A] [53] [44] = [+9]
FOX News [2/23 - 2/24] [900 RV] [47] [45] = [+2]
POS (R) [2/17 - 2/18] [900] [RV] [48] [48] = [Tie]
Newsweek [2/17 - 2/18] [1009 A] [48] [40] = [+8]
above we have the 6 latest national polls on President Obama's approval rating. First you see the name of the polling firm: Gallup ie. next you see the time the poll was conducted: 3/2-3/4: this is a 2 day polling cycle. Next you will find a number followed by an ab. 1547 A ie. the next numbers in line are the approval/positive number: 50 which is 50% followed by the disapproval/negative number of 44 which is 44%. The last number is basic math: 50-44 = 6%. The remaining numbers not in the data reflect no opinion/ unsure or another candidate (usually a 3rd party candidate not polled).
When it comes to the number: the old myth is that the higher the sample size the more accurate: this is true to some degree. With a low number you usually see for example "a margin of 3.5%-4% and on a higher sample size it is cut down as little as "1.5%" usually. However the truth is beyond 2.5% it is almost like guessing if the additional samples are going to make the data more accurate or less accurate; a sample is a sample. if you sampled 25% or 50% of voters that is a bit excessive: that would be an "election".
So what is important here: the most important information when looking at a poll is the abbreviation after the sample size. If you notice above: grad any poll with the same abbreviation and the results should be somewhat similar, now compare different ones and there are larger ranges of differences. What do these symbols mean?
There are 3 common for official polls.
1. A
For a poll to be official it must contain only Adults in the sample: When you get these annoying calls the first thing they ask if is if you are old enough to vote, or 18. If you say no, they ask for an adult.
There are polls done without this criteria, but you will not find them posted on official poll averages.
This is the least accurate form of polling.
2. RV
Registered Voters: After you are asked if you are old enough the vote: one of the first questions the surveyor will ask you is if you are registered to vote, or will register to vote prior to the election being surveyed. If you say no, they say thank you for your time *click*
This polling data is much more accurate than Adults only data, because it eliminates those who can not vote due to either their own reason or because of legal reasons such as criminal laws in some states or non citizens.
3. LV
This polling is the most accurate especially immediately prior to an election: Likely Voters. Towards the end of a survey you are almost always asked how likely you are to vote in the upcoming election. Depending on the survey you are given either 3 or 5 choices. For example: Will not vote, not likely, somewhat likely, likely, very likely.
In this data: if you say either Not going to vote, or not likely going to vote your information will not be counted towards the final results of the poll, but still included in the general questions asked. Polling finds that those who are most involved and/or informed in elections are most likely going to vote. So many time there are registered voters who have strong opinions, but don't find it necessary to go and vote on election day for which ever reason, the biggest reason statically is that your vote doesn't matter, or either choice is not going to make a difference.
Real Clear Politics founder calls Gallup-Rasmussen the most accurate polling combination. These polls make a wide range of the spectrum.
Gallup usually polls Adults only, besides when they team up with USA Today or a few other groups to poll RV polls. While Rasmussen Almost always polls in LV, when able too. This is why Rasmussen prior to elections is the most accurate, while Gallup is the best as noticing national future trend rather than immediate results.
In our RCP sample for today 3/5/10
we see Obama up 3+ points.
A average = Obama is up by 7.67%
RV average = Obama is up by 1pt.
LV Rasmussen = (-)7 points
With elections only 8 months away campaigns should be focusing on RV and LV right now, and in the next couple months they should be focusing only on LV response.
Over the past 2 weeks we have seen many liberal/democratic leaning firms release their data in either A or RV form, when in some cases they normally use the RV/LV form. this is the pollster trick.
I cannot say that i have a degree in election polling, but i can say that i did get involved first hand with political polling in the 2008 election once, both for PA and DE. Being the person on the end of the phone who bothered you while you were eating or running out the door, you see things a little bit differently.
The standard size polling data is often time 500 sample, however is small states like Delaware for example 280-350 is good enough for qualifications. The Poll must reach a percent of the state population, as well as an equal proportion in the poll in each county or district as the state population. The poll must also reach general stereotype of the region, for example if an area is mostly elderly people the polling data should reflect that. If it is a college town, is should reflect the younger age group. If you are in an inner city you should have higher numbers of minorities such as blacks or Hispanics depending on where you are sampling. Your sample size should also be similar with male to female ratio of the state and areas of polling. Now do all polls do a good job at this, for the most part yes, but sometimes they do slip up on some of these voter blocks in some data. To some degree it can be forgiven, in others it can not. But you get the point.
A controversial figure has to do with how calls are conducted: if it is a robo call many people are more likely to conduct the survey to an automatic message, but there is always risk of less serious responses.
In a person to person call: the person conducting the survey can convince you to choose one answer over the other. Also the way questions are asked or read off can push you to answer one way over the other.
-enough of that: its time to get onto the tricks that polling has come up with to mislead its raw data.
we are going to look at the RCP average for President Obama's Approval vs disapproval ratings:
RCP Average [2/17 - 3/4] -- [48.7] [45.7] = [+3.0]
Gallup [3/2 - 3/4] [1547 A] [50] [44] = [+6]
Rasmussen Reports [3/2 - 3/4] [1500 LV] [46] [53] = [-7]
Ipsos/McClatchy [2/26 - 2/28] [1076 A] [53] [44] = [+9]
FOX News [2/23 - 2/24] [900 RV] [47] [45] = [+2]
POS (R) [2/17 - 2/18] [900] [RV] [48] [48] = [Tie]
Newsweek [2/17 - 2/18] [1009 A] [48] [40] = [+8]
above we have the 6 latest national polls on President Obama's approval rating. First you see the name of the polling firm: Gallup ie. next you see the time the poll was conducted: 3/2-3/4: this is a 2 day polling cycle. Next you will find a number followed by an ab. 1547 A ie. the next numbers in line are the approval/positive number: 50 which is 50% followed by the disapproval/negative number of 44 which is 44%. The last number is basic math: 50-44 = 6%. The remaining numbers not in the data reflect no opinion/ unsure or another candidate (usually a 3rd party candidate not polled).
When it comes to the number: the old myth is that the higher the sample size the more accurate: this is true to some degree. With a low number you usually see for example "a margin of 3.5%-4% and on a higher sample size it is cut down as little as "1.5%" usually. However the truth is beyond 2.5% it is almost like guessing if the additional samples are going to make the data more accurate or less accurate; a sample is a sample. if you sampled 25% or 50% of voters that is a bit excessive: that would be an "election".
So what is important here: the most important information when looking at a poll is the abbreviation after the sample size. If you notice above: grad any poll with the same abbreviation and the results should be somewhat similar, now compare different ones and there are larger ranges of differences. What do these symbols mean?
There are 3 common for official polls.
1. A
For a poll to be official it must contain only Adults in the sample: When you get these annoying calls the first thing they ask if is if you are old enough to vote, or 18. If you say no, they ask for an adult.
There are polls done without this criteria, but you will not find them posted on official poll averages.
This is the least accurate form of polling.
2. RV
Registered Voters: After you are asked if you are old enough the vote: one of the first questions the surveyor will ask you is if you are registered to vote, or will register to vote prior to the election being surveyed. If you say no, they say thank you for your time *click*
This polling data is much more accurate than Adults only data, because it eliminates those who can not vote due to either their own reason or because of legal reasons such as criminal laws in some states or non citizens.
3. LV
This polling is the most accurate especially immediately prior to an election: Likely Voters. Towards the end of a survey you are almost always asked how likely you are to vote in the upcoming election. Depending on the survey you are given either 3 or 5 choices. For example: Will not vote, not likely, somewhat likely, likely, very likely.
In this data: if you say either Not going to vote, or not likely going to vote your information will not be counted towards the final results of the poll, but still included in the general questions asked. Polling finds that those who are most involved and/or informed in elections are most likely going to vote. So many time there are registered voters who have strong opinions, but don't find it necessary to go and vote on election day for which ever reason, the biggest reason statically is that your vote doesn't matter, or either choice is not going to make a difference.
Real Clear Politics founder calls Gallup-Rasmussen the most accurate polling combination. These polls make a wide range of the spectrum.
Gallup usually polls Adults only, besides when they team up with USA Today or a few other groups to poll RV polls. While Rasmussen Almost always polls in LV, when able too. This is why Rasmussen prior to elections is the most accurate, while Gallup is the best as noticing national future trend rather than immediate results.
In our RCP sample for today 3/5/10
we see Obama up 3+ points.
A average = Obama is up by 7.67%
RV average = Obama is up by 1pt.
LV Rasmussen = (-)7 points
With elections only 8 months away campaigns should be focusing on RV and LV right now, and in the next couple months they should be focusing only on LV response.
Over the past 2 weeks we have seen many liberal/democratic leaning firms release their data in either A or RV form, when in some cases they normally use the RV/LV form. this is the pollster trick.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Gov Sarah Palin and the Tea Party Movement
Yesterday was the first day of the Tea Party Convention. Small in numbers due to outrageous ticket prices, but isn’t that expected if the group trying to pull 15 different chapters all called “Tea Party” together? Including Tax Day Tea Party, Pinellas Patriots, 9/12 Tea Party Patriots, as well as other American, Independent, Liberty, Constitutional, and State Tea Parties. Maybe not.
If you can afford to pay 549.00 a ticket, or 349.00 to see the main speaker than I guess it is more of a fundraising event for exclusive members in order to raise money for the rest of the group? I simply do not know for sure. But if there is any time to start fundraising money besides over the internet now is an excellent time to start: election are only in 9 months. [just enough time to get knocked up and have a baby]
One of yesterday’s biggest hits from the Far Left was attacking the involvement of Gov Sarah Palin, who was the main speaker during the first night. It is no surprise that there are a lot of Palin supporters who would rather see her on the bottom of a presidential ticket rather than on top, but this shouldn’t limit her from endorsing and helping a political movement. Isn’t that the point of a movement, to get the governing officials and advocates in line with the people? YES.
The media is calling Palin and the Tea Party the Split and destruction of the Republican Party. Lets stop right there for a moment - Did the Democrats warn President G W Bush when he signed the No Child Left Behind Act (which was a water down version of the Democratic legislation written up) that it would destroy the Republican Party image? No they did not. Did they warm President Bush that his Stimulus Package he signed was too little, too late and that it would make it almost impossible for John McCain during the 2008 election (even though the Obama Administration controlled about half of that money and signed in a second Stimulus Package just a few months later) and Republicans across the country to get elected? NO!
Then why would Democratic Leaders Warn Republicans that getting involved with a civilian lead political movement is going to destroy their Political Party? Isn’t that what they want? Indeed that is what the Progressives want. Remember the Progressives?
The Progressives were such a force that they had actually split from the Democratic Party and ran candidates under several different Democratic-Progressive 3rd Party bids for office during Presidential elections.
Its hard to imagine that the Progressive Party ended the means of the Democratic Party, splitting it in two and allowing Republicans to take forever unpreventable control of the Government for the past several decades, because that did not happen. The Progressive Era was exactly the same Re-aligning shift in the Democratic Party then, as the Tea Party movement has been breached by the Republican Party today.
Just over the past 9 years the Democrats have been telling the Republicans that it is time to re-invent themselves because Americans are seeing the comparisons clearly between the two parties. They were telling Republicans to shift closer to the center for two reasons:
- Anger Moderate Republicans who are already irritated with the GOP, and silently encouraging them and especially voters to jump ship.
- To cause Conservative Republicans more grief in how the “good old boys” are destroying the Republican Party Platform, to discourage them from affiliating with the Party.
Lets make some comparisons to the Progressive Leadership who controlled the Democratic Process over the Years. Remember 1980: Young Progressive-Liberal Senator Ted (Edward) Kennedy was fighting the Democratic Party, trying to change the rules along the process to defeat Jimmy Carter to take his bid and control of the direction of the Democratic Party. 30 years later: the man was known as: The Lion in the Senate, the man who had Liberalized the Party and shifted it to the left, who had pushed President Obama over Senator H R Clinton in the 2008 election. Prior to this race in 1980 he was just the youngest Kennedy with the least experience or clout.
That might be it! Liberals are worried! They see Palin as the candidate who is willing to allow the people to change the Republican Party, Like Ted Kennedy did in the Democratic Party 30 years earlier. Maybe we will see the Government of Power turn into the Government of the People! Could it be that with time, experience, and exposure that Sarah Palin could become a modern day political icon? You Betcha!
Saturday, January 23, 2010
This week there is just so much going on in our Law and Political Governing system, that once again; I need to push back my intended material, and focus on a recent national event.
Thursday's Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Its rear that the Supreme Court actually decides on cases, but when they do they usually pick a few at a time and over a few week span may vote on more than one, and that is what is happening right now.
In this case, it was a case to allow the government from limiting businesses and organizations form hiring workers such as writers and authors who support one candidate or political party over the other, also it would allow books from being black listed on book clubs and libraries.
How did the Supreme Court Vote to protect the freedom of speech?
They voted to uphold the current 1st amendment, of course right? They did, but it wasn't that clean of a break. The court voted in favor 5-4 to keep the 1st amendment intake. The four justices who consider themselves as "liberal" all voted "NO". Why would the Political mind who controls the White House, Both congresses and a majority in the Supreme Court want to give more power to the Government and less to the American people?
You can figure it out: Have you ever studied the Soviet political cue? The "revolution' that turned the USSR into a 180 degree turn? Study the USSR, and compare it with the Leftist or SR's in our political Left. I dare you.
Thursday's Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Its rear that the Supreme Court actually decides on cases, but when they do they usually pick a few at a time and over a few week span may vote on more than one, and that is what is happening right now.
In this case, it was a case to allow the government from limiting businesses and organizations form hiring workers such as writers and authors who support one candidate or political party over the other, also it would allow books from being black listed on book clubs and libraries.
How did the Supreme Court Vote to protect the freedom of speech?
They voted to uphold the current 1st amendment, of course right? They did, but it wasn't that clean of a break. The court voted in favor 5-4 to keep the 1st amendment intake. The four justices who consider themselves as "liberal" all voted "NO". Why would the Political mind who controls the White House, Both congresses and a majority in the Supreme Court want to give more power to the Government and less to the American people?
You can figure it out: Have you ever studied the Soviet political cue? The "revolution' that turned the USSR into a 180 degree turn? Study the USSR, and compare it with the Leftist or SR's in our political Left. I dare you.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Over the next several weeks i will be working on smoothing this layout and style but until then it is still important for me to continue bloging:
Since Laws are Public domain - will be quoting a large section of a Law Voted on today and decided in the Supreme Court. here is the full link: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION
COMMISSION
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
No. 08–205. Argued March 24, 2009—Reargued September 9, 2009––Decided January 21, 2010
As amended by §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002(BCRA), federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech that is an “electioneering communication” or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate. 2 U. S. C. §441b. An electioneering communication is “any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication” that “refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office” and is made within 30 days of a primary election,§434(f)(3)(A), and that is “publicly distributed,” 11 CFR §100.29(a)(2),which in “the case of a candidate for nomination for President . . . means” that the communication “[c]an be received by 50,000 or more persons in a State where a primary election . . . is being held within 30 days,” §100.29(b)(3)(ii). Corporations and unions may establish apolitical action committee (PAC) for express advocacy or electioneer-ing communications purposes. 2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(2). In McConnell
v.
Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U. S. 93, 203–209, this Court upheld limits on electioneering communications in a facial challenge, relying on the holding in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494
U.
S. 652, that political speech may be banned based on the speaker’s corporate identity.
Where did our candidates stand on this issue in 2008? John McCain one of the writers of the bill had actually back tracked a little and made a compromise saying he would not vote on his bill in its form. Ok? Barack Obama on the other hand took a firm stance along with the 2008 Democrat Platform to reduce such funding. Ok?
Well then: So this new Law as it have been passed today, and can only be reversed in a future vote in the supreme court, makes it legal for corporations and unions to spend as much money they want on elections. What is interesting is that many Unions have the power to increase dues at any time, now could you imagine how many unions are going to increase dues just to aid candidates and political parties? ALOT. How the Supreme Court could have ever voted such a thing, especially after what happened in 2008: were many corporations donated the max amount of money to Obama's aid, as well as money prior to his official nomination were they were not so limited - later to file bankruptcy.
But this isn't a normal Supreme Court, a court full of wise non-partisan judges, it is a court mostly filled with liberal judges who are looking to advance the Democrat-Liberal Agenda in Washington to your home.
Since Laws are Public domain - will be quoting a large section of a Law Voted on today and decided in the Supreme Court. here is the full link: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION
COMMISSION
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
No. 08–205. Argued March 24, 2009—Reargued September 9, 2009––Decided January 21, 2010
As amended by §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002(BCRA), federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech that is an “electioneering communication” or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate. 2 U. S. C. §441b. An electioneering communication is “any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication” that “refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office” and is made within 30 days of a primary election,§434(f)(3)(A), and that is “publicly distributed,” 11 CFR §100.29(a)(2),which in “the case of a candidate for nomination for President . . . means” that the communication “[c]an be received by 50,000 or more persons in a State where a primary election . . . is being held within 30 days,” §100.29(b)(3)(ii). Corporations and unions may establish apolitical action committee (PAC) for express advocacy or electioneer-ing communications purposes. 2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(2). In McConnell
v.
Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U. S. 93, 203–209, this Court upheld limits on electioneering communications in a facial challenge, relying on the holding in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494
U.
S. 652, that political speech may be banned based on the speaker’s corporate identity.
Where did our candidates stand on this issue in 2008? John McCain one of the writers of the bill had actually back tracked a little and made a compromise saying he would not vote on his bill in its form. Ok? Barack Obama on the other hand took a firm stance along with the 2008 Democrat Platform to reduce such funding. Ok?
Well then: So this new Law as it have been passed today, and can only be reversed in a future vote in the supreme court, makes it legal for corporations and unions to spend as much money they want on elections. What is interesting is that many Unions have the power to increase dues at any time, now could you imagine how many unions are going to increase dues just to aid candidates and political parties? ALOT. How the Supreme Court could have ever voted such a thing, especially after what happened in 2008: were many corporations donated the max amount of money to Obama's aid, as well as money prior to his official nomination were they were not so limited - later to file bankruptcy.
But this isn't a normal Supreme Court, a court full of wise non-partisan judges, it is a court mostly filled with liberal judges who are looking to advance the Democrat-Liberal Agenda in Washington to your home.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Who I am and what i think.
The most powerful media outlet today is the Internet. Most political science nerds surf blogs and news columns for hours on end hoping to read a post that reports good news for their candidate or political alliance. It is here were reports of scandals and dumb moments are caught and not forgotten while daytime television refuses to report the story. Blogger have one advantage over the Main stream media; they do not depend on ratings.
I think of myself as a Conservative-Libertarian, but more times than not i simply say Conservative. I am impressed with the Libertarian grass roots movement, and its backbone cause to address and fix the market by going back on the Gold Standard. I see this as an important, but difficult task. For that they have earned my highest respect. However the small government rhetoric which is intriguing to many, has left void gaps in their party for anarchy and liberal youth to stretch out its means, thus changing their goals. As the Democratic Party has shifted to the Left, so has the Liberian Party. This party was an alternative voice for Gopers, but now it is simply a fiscally conservative, socially liberal platform.
I look further to find a similar party which is more socially conservative: I find the Constitution Party, impressed with this party. But it is simply too small of a party for me to switch my voter registration. It only has a sizable presence in the south.
I find is surprising that Libertarians and Constitutionalists are at odds just like our current Democrats and Republicans are. No wonder both parties are having a hard time capitalizing on large numbers of new independent voters. Ron Paul a 10 term Republican-Libertarian from TX ran an amazing campaign in 2008, and ended up endorsing the Constitutional Party candidate Chuck Baldwin over the Libertarian Bob Barr. In so the [R'evol'ution] was stopped in its tracks.
Bob Barr even with Paul's endorsement was not going to lead the Libertarian ticket to any symbolic victory in 2008: because Bob Barr was not a true Libertarian.
In our current system voters are outraged when a politician during backroom deals goes out and votes differently on an issue than the one he stands firmly on, or when a politician changes parties and suddenly disagrees with past bills he voted for. Bob Barr as a Republican has the voting record as a RINO (a term given to big-business-big-government Republicans who vote on matter for elites and the rich.) he was the sponsor on Marriage bills against gay marriage, against abortions, In favor of the Patriot Act, and supported the 2nd amendment.
Once a Libertarian candidate: he became: pro-choice, supported gay marriage, was against the patriot act, and wanted to ban guns. He was just a 3rd option of the same thing. Democrat-Republican-Libertarian mixture in 2008.
So many disgruntled voters are sick of the political system, and maybe the political parties are all the blame. Actually they are a large part of it, but we as voters and non voters fill the gap and make it even worse. Many voters in the last several months before the 2008 Election complained that our choices were Democrat Sen. Obama (Il) and Republican Sen. McCain (Az) a Sophomore Liberal verses an old time moderate. [Isn't it interesting how the younger looking the candidate, the more likely he will win?] Not many choices here. So lets support a 3rd party: Libertarians are running a few ads in a few states and are really trying to build up state support in several Libertarian strong holds, and the Constitutional Party is doing the same thing in a couple states as well. Nader is running ads across a handful of states while splitting with the Green Party, but this time around isn't running as a serious candidate.
So in our anger we consider voting for a 3rd party, but on election day many of us either voted between the 2 DENO and RINO or simply stayed home and got angry on either outcome.
There is a voting process that would even help both political parties to get in line with the general public, and would eliminate the need of so many 3rd parties. Although an alternative voice would be nice.
Although it would be nice to be like NY: that has Liberal, Democrat, Independent, Republican, Conservative as well as a few other options on the ballot, where candidates can cross over on several ticket. But that is not in our control at this time, but what is is just as important, if not more important. We as voters need to be apart of the voting process all year long, not just every 2 or 4 years. During the primaries we need to go out and vote, It is here where many of the great candidates often fall short.
More articles to come soon:
Massachusetts elects a Republican to fill Kennedy's seat.
Mitt Romney was not a Conservative.
Martin Luther King Jr was a Republican.
What if Clinton were President?
I think of myself as a Conservative-Libertarian, but more times than not i simply say Conservative. I am impressed with the Libertarian grass roots movement, and its backbone cause to address and fix the market by going back on the Gold Standard. I see this as an important, but difficult task. For that they have earned my highest respect. However the small government rhetoric which is intriguing to many, has left void gaps in their party for anarchy and liberal youth to stretch out its means, thus changing their goals. As the Democratic Party has shifted to the Left, so has the Liberian Party. This party was an alternative voice for Gopers, but now it is simply a fiscally conservative, socially liberal platform.
I look further to find a similar party which is more socially conservative: I find the Constitution Party, impressed with this party. But it is simply too small of a party for me to switch my voter registration. It only has a sizable presence in the south.
I find is surprising that Libertarians and Constitutionalists are at odds just like our current Democrats and Republicans are. No wonder both parties are having a hard time capitalizing on large numbers of new independent voters. Ron Paul a 10 term Republican-Libertarian from TX ran an amazing campaign in 2008, and ended up endorsing the Constitutional Party candidate Chuck Baldwin over the Libertarian Bob Barr. In so the [R'evol'ution] was stopped in its tracks.
Bob Barr even with Paul's endorsement was not going to lead the Libertarian ticket to any symbolic victory in 2008: because Bob Barr was not a true Libertarian.
In our current system voters are outraged when a politician during backroom deals goes out and votes differently on an issue than the one he stands firmly on, or when a politician changes parties and suddenly disagrees with past bills he voted for. Bob Barr as a Republican has the voting record as a RINO (a term given to big-business-big-government Republicans who vote on matter for elites and the rich.) he was the sponsor on Marriage bills against gay marriage, against abortions, In favor of the Patriot Act, and supported the 2nd amendment.
Once a Libertarian candidate: he became: pro-choice, supported gay marriage, was against the patriot act, and wanted to ban guns. He was just a 3rd option of the same thing. Democrat-Republican-Libertarian mixture in 2008.
So many disgruntled voters are sick of the political system, and maybe the political parties are all the blame. Actually they are a large part of it, but we as voters and non voters fill the gap and make it even worse. Many voters in the last several months before the 2008 Election complained that our choices were Democrat Sen. Obama (Il) and Republican Sen. McCain (Az) a Sophomore Liberal verses an old time moderate. [Isn't it interesting how the younger looking the candidate, the more likely he will win?] Not many choices here. So lets support a 3rd party: Libertarians are running a few ads in a few states and are really trying to build up state support in several Libertarian strong holds, and the Constitutional Party is doing the same thing in a couple states as well. Nader is running ads across a handful of states while splitting with the Green Party, but this time around isn't running as a serious candidate.
So in our anger we consider voting for a 3rd party, but on election day many of us either voted between the 2 DENO and RINO or simply stayed home and got angry on either outcome.
There is a voting process that would even help both political parties to get in line with the general public, and would eliminate the need of so many 3rd parties. Although an alternative voice would be nice.
Although it would be nice to be like NY: that has Liberal, Democrat, Independent, Republican, Conservative as well as a few other options on the ballot, where candidates can cross over on several ticket. But that is not in our control at this time, but what is is just as important, if not more important. We as voters need to be apart of the voting process all year long, not just every 2 or 4 years. During the primaries we need to go out and vote, It is here where many of the great candidates often fall short.
More articles to come soon:
Massachusetts elects a Republican to fill Kennedy's seat.
Mitt Romney was not a Conservative.
Martin Luther King Jr was a Republican.
What if Clinton were President?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
