View Full Version : Current election
Okay so I live in DC, Northern Virginia area, but still go back to NC monthly. So I get to see two of the States that the GOP needs to win and the campaign ads that are being ran in each state.
I can say, IMO the GOP once again isn't doing a good job and trying to win key states. The DemocRat opponent ads are running the airwaves every commercial break. Also the DemocRat back PACs and Super PAC originations are running their own ads against the GOP candidates.
For me this is not going to get people to change their votes and I will even say, it won't get people out and vote for the GOP.
Out here the Congressional race is nothing but über-negative, ugly attack ads for both sides and people are tired of it. As in NC, I doubt they'll sway any voters from voting their traditional party ticket of choice.
For the governor's race, the Dem incumbent has a strong record and is generally well liked; the Rep candidate has struggled the entire campaign to overcome the 54% incumbent 19% challenger poll numbers.
And so it goes...
Richard
TrapperFrank
10-14-2014, 09:35
"There is not a dimes worth of difference between the Democrats and Republicans." George Corlely Wallace, former governor of the state of Alabama
"There is not a dimes worth of difference between the Democrats and Republicans." George Corlely Wallace, former governor of the state of Alabama
I'm in full agreement on this statement!!
"There is not a dimes worth of difference between the Democrats and Republicans." George Corlely Wallace, former governor of the state of Alabama
Agreed. If the Republicans take the Senate, you won't see anyting different than what you get from the Democrats. Both parties are useless to the majority of the American people...
Trappertod
10-14-2014, 14:30
Seems like to me we are being taxed again without fair representation, are you all sure we broke from the monarchy?
Out here the Congressional race is nothing but über-negative, ugly attack ads for both sides and people are tired of it.
I would have made myself available had I known about this mornings debate between Art Moore and Tom McClintock. According to the news (http://www.sacbee.com/2014/10/14/6781765/rep-tom-mcclintock-art-moore-get.html), it got personal.
I despise career politicians but I do like the way things are in my county so it'll be tough for me to vote in new blood.
For the governor's race, the Dem incumbent has a strong record and is generally well liked; the Rep candidate has struggled the entire campaign to overcome the 54% incumbent 19% challenger poll numbers.
Now that I know Jerry Brown drowns children, Kashkari's got my vote.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEZFdmwqG3Q
Golf1echo
10-15-2014, 05:22
Here is an article on a Colorado race I have been watching: http://news.yahoo.com/is-cory-gardner-s-nice-guy-persona-enough-to-win-in-colorado-230141864.html
It covers some interesting ground about where the future of the Republican party might be heading, it also exposes some of the values of the right that make it challenging for the center to agree with.
Udalls adds are perplexing, they say things like " Women are front and center in our ( his) campaign" but fails to cover any issues or say why :confused: From my view time for professional politicians to be replaced by others that are concerned about the issues and interested in doing the peoples work. Udall has apparently been absent for most of the votes on the Armed Forces and Intelligence committees, busy I suppose.
A little on Udalls world views...how the heck was he placed on those committees?
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2014/09/09/udall-gardner-clash-on-foreign-policy/
Libertarians here in NC (two in my family circle) are ecstatic that they might get 7% this election.
That's their big issue. Getting more than 2%.
Hagan will win reelection by far less votes than the Libertarian candidate got.
To be fair, Tillis was the GOP-e candidate and the conservatives split their vote """again""" letting the GOP-e candidate float to the top. So now some "conservatives" are all butt hurt and are running to the Libertarian candidate.
Hey, dudes, how about winning for a change!!??
Golf1echo
10-15-2014, 09:48
Libertarians here in NC (two in my family circle) are ecstatic that they might get 7% this election.
That's their big issue. Getting more than 2%.
Hagan will win reelection by far less votes than the Libertarian candidate got.
To be fair, Tillis was the GOP-e candidate and the conservatives split their vote """again""" letting the GOP-e candidate float to the top. So now some "conservatives" are all butt hurt and are running to the Libertarian candidate.
Hey, dudes, how about winning for a change!!??
I used to be like that, voted by my principles... voting along party lines this time is the best message I can send these next few terms ( rejection votes for the current administration and the infill of that ilk into our government). Seems important to be working within the party I align with the closest to make changes to the quality of candidates they field too. Voting for a libertarian or independent is like throwing your vote away, maybe even two votes.
I despise career politicians but I do like the way things are in my county so it'll be tough for me to vote in new blood.
Aahhh, the ol' Congress is all f'ed up! Except for MY congressman.
News flash! They are all f'ed up, even mine. Fire the whole lot.
Peregrino
10-15-2014, 18:56
If you want to be a conservative, vote your principles in the primaries. Hold your nose and vote party line in the general elections (that does not include Libertarian lunacies). Otherwise you're contributing to the downfall. If you disagree, you're either uneducated (probable given the lack of civics education in the modern curriculum), naive, or nihilist. In any event, doing otherwise guarantees that your vote will support the least favorable outcome.
I'm looking forward to voting for Tillis.
How often do you get a chance to vote for a motherless son of Satan who rips puppies and kittens apart with his teeth, who drags old people out of their homes and pours burning water from fracturing wells down their throats as he kicks them into the street, burns women alive at the stake - and doing it all with a smile.
See, I did learn something from the hour I watched TV tonight.
Peregrino
10-15-2014, 19:54
I'm looking forward to voting for Tillis.
How often do you get a chance to vote for a motherless son of Satan who rips puppies and kittens apart with his teeth, who drags old people out of their homes and pours burning water from fracturing wells down their throats as he kicks them into the street, burns women alive at the stake - and doing it all with a smile.
See, I did learn something from the hour I watched TV tonight.
Me too. Sad commentary WRT the "lesser of the available evils".
I get to vote for the woman who sued the DoD about having to wear an abaya off base in Saudi Arabia. (Saying her name in the A-10 community is a $5 fine.) From those that served with her, the complaints from the Saudi's was that she ran around the perimeter fence in a sports bra. She also claimed to be the first woman to fly in combat and command a combat squadron. She's since amended it to say the first AF woman to fly in combat and command an AF squadron. Pat Schroeder closely followed her training and career by calling her commanders. Also, as in Instructor Pilot at DM, in Tucson, she took off with a student in tow and had to declare an emergency when she discovered that she took off with only reserve fuel.
There 'ya go. Just another outstanding conservative Republican.
Pat
Aahhh, the ol' Congress is all f'ed up! Except for MY congressman.
News flash! They are all f'ed up, even mine. Fire the whole lot.
We should fire them all, but how do we replace them with honest people who have the best interest of their constituents in mind?
Until that question is answered, I will continue voting for the guy who makes sure the things I am passionate about are protected. If our district's conservatives allow themselves to get ethered up on the change the moderate Republican challenger promises us, we'll get screwed at the local level like we did nationally in 08.
Marlboro
10-16-2014, 04:04
You guys are crazy. You don't even seem to understand that every individual that has the title -- "Quiet Professional" on here is a political goldmine. This is what I dislike about a lot of folks, they don't see the best way to change the system, is be the system.
Don't like the education system? Run for school board.
Don't like allocation of resources in your town? Run for mayor/city council/alderman.
Come on guys, you've spent your entire career watching you & your buddies 6, and thinking on the fly. What you take for granted, MOST of the folks running pay a team for.
I'm so tired of having half the armed services committee having never served, and a congress that doesn't want to give pay raises to the troops.
I'm just saying...
:munchin
....This is what I dislike about a lot of folks, they don't see the best way to change the system, is be the system. ......
And the political office you hold is .......
Marlboro
10-16-2014, 06:02
I normally keep people from achieving political office.
I normally keep people from achieving political office.
So you're not doing what you're chastising us for not doing?
Is your 20 year plan to become some Senator's Dog Robber or a political consultant?
Golf1echo
10-21-2014, 15:17
If you want to be a conservative, vote your principles in the primaries. Hold your nose and vote party line in the general elections...
Completed. It left me with a warm fuzzy feeling :D
Edit: If it helps, I voted early at county election office, it could not have been easier.
You guys are crazy. You don't even seem to understand that every individual that has the title -- "Quiet Professional" on here is a political goldmine. This is what I dislike about a lot of folks, they don't see the best way to change the system, is be the system.
Don't like the education system? Run for school board.
Don't like allocation of resources in your town? Run for mayor/city council/alderman.
Come on guys, you've spent your entire career watching you & your buddies 6, and thinking on the fly. What you take for granted, MOST of the folks running pay a team for.
I'm so tired of having half the armed services committee having never served, and a congress that doesn't want to give pay raises to the troops.
I'm just saying...
:munchin
BINGO! Thank you.
What I've learned about political TV ads is:
Only 5% are effective enough to significantly change votes enough to make a difference.
Or they help boost name recognition (early in the campaign).
All the others just:
Give political fodder to the opposition.
Infuse money into the local economy.
Steal money from more effective political activity.
Edit: TV is also great for a last minute smear - but usually doesn't change any votes.
Radio is most effective in getting out last minute smears/corrections.
Nope ... no voter fraud here in Colorado ... nothing to see here .... move along ...
http://coloradopeakpolitics.com/2014/10/22/gotcha-undercover-reporter-catches-dem-activists-condoning-voter-fraud/
:mad:
Golf1echo
10-22-2014, 16:03
It was ironic that when I registered yesterday, I had to come up with several forms of ID, proof of a residence address and indicate where I was last registered to vote...but to vote all you need is a ballot that is mailed out to everyone registered. So if you get, find, steal a ballot you get one vote per ballot no matter who you are :eek: I got raised eye brows when I asked about the ballots going to assisted living and nursing facilities...imagine. So they do a good job on the front end but only a signature authentication for the vote/ballot. Try verifying signatures on an envelope to each vote on an anonymous ballot...another case of disappearing evidence?
Badger52
10-23-2014, 04:55
Other than the contest for governor and a state assembly race the rather 'quiet' race going on is an effort to unseat an 18-yr tick from the Washington DC dog. Rep. Ron Kind is being challenged by retired Cobra & AH-64 driver Tony Kurtz (http://www.kurtzforcongress.org/#!aboutony/c1n8o). Kind has been in long enough that his large funding from pharmaceutical companies and insurance & health-care conglomerates is well documented. General take from alot of folks is that "he's a nice guy" but is a poster boy for term limits, saying one thing during home visit town-halls and voting his party line when he gets back to the District Cesspool out east. Shocking. :eek:
Locally we're still using Sharpies for an optical scanner (manual labor required) and not those pesky "mis-calibrated" touch-screens. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/22/calibration-error-changes-gop-votes-to-dem-in-illinois-county/)
Marlboro
10-23-2014, 18:26
What I've learned about political TV ads is:
Only 5% are effective enough to significantly change votes enough to make a difference.
Or they help boost name recognition (early in the campaign).
All the others just:
Give political fodder to the opposition.
Infuse money into the local economy.
Steal money from more effective political activity.
Edit: TV is also great for a last minute smear - but usually doesn't change any votes.
Radio is most effective in getting out last minute smears/corrections.
Fascinating take.. Multiple studies claim: "Negativity is remembered, positive messages are forgotten." In modern politics, the segmentation of the population now means almost every message is A/B tested for your specific area. They'll run one ad on broadcast, another on cable. The prevailing theory these days is -- "if you're defending yourself, you're not moving forward." This political hypothesis means: if you're down in the polls, run a bonzai attack of negativity.
Currently, the thievery isn't as much on broadcast, as it is digital. They've turned online generated content into a goldmine for consultants. Recently, you may have seen a few articles about Harris Media out of Texas, and Ruffini at Engage, in DC. These guys charge a arm and a leg to produce mailers, graphics, websites, digital ad buys (Facebook, and rarely twitter). They currently have a battle going on with field, and Tv ad buyers. Radio, is almost long forgotten on the political trail. The original of the segmentation, and the forerunner of everything in politics today has made a dramatic reemergence into the political realm. Thank you MR2 for pointing out radio, it's so much cheaper than Tv, people often don't push it.
Lighthouse
10-23-2014, 19:08
You guys really feel libertarian votes are wasted votes?
The Reaper
10-23-2014, 19:20
You guys really feel libertarian votes are wasted votes?
Absolutely.
Unless the contest is between the Libertarian and one other candidate, you are splitting the conservative vote and handing the election to the liberal.
If there is a Lib running against a single opponent, then I vote Lib every time.
TR
Badger52
10-23-2014, 19:28
You guys really feel libertarian votes are wasted votes?Statistically? Or as a personal moral palliative?
Lighthouse
10-23-2014, 20:20
I can see your point with people liberals remaining consistent with liberals and republicans going back and forth on libertarian and republican.
Palliative eh? Well played sir.
Badger52
10-23-2014, 20:38
I can see your point with people liberals remaining consistent with liberals and republicans going back and forth on libertarian and republican.
Palliative eh? Well played sir.Personally I don't think even 1 or 2 full cycles of voting is going to get close to changing anything substantial because of this marvelous transformation we've been on for awhile now. I'd vote libertarian in a viable situation in a NY minute. But I've personally seen the affect those candidacies often have; sad but true. We got 4 more years of a "I Loves My Taxes" dem governor before the current one (thank the stars for term limits) because a Libertarian split off just enough of the vote; individual known personally to me, owned a supper club right here in town. Told me afterward that it was the stupidest thing he'd ever done.
As a side note, I happened to catch CSPAN's replay of the CPUSA national meeting back in June, hosted at the University of Illinois (try to get over your shock). Sam Webb, their National Chair at the time, specifically stated that they gain no ground running candidates under their banner for the time being. He makes no bones about the fact that they are using the Democratic party to advance their agendas [now who's the "tool"?] until "we can take them further to some higher ground" and have wrapped themselves up in environmental causes. This is a great way to hamstring the evil capitalist monsters (and daily news accounts of the Enviro-cops bears this out).
One other tidbit useful if you ever get to a boring cocktail party or some outdoor bazaar with these CPUSA yay-hoos and want some entertainment - just mention the Koch Bros. or the Keystone Pipeline project and they will spin-up higher than an F1 engine. Man that guy was almost foaming at the mouth... :D
So if the Communists have learned not to squander votes in order to avoid drawing away from their current useful idiots...
Lighthouse
10-23-2014, 22:08
Personally I just struggle with doing the same thing again. Also that the supreme court ruled money is free speech and there are no limits on donations. How a currency is equal to something free is beyond me. I'm willing to bet both sides of the fence have the same backers.
I won't ever vote for a democrat though. The entire ideology is based on segregation and managing the poor and uneducated. Hopefully the republicans take the senate over the dems though. Just the fact they think anything Barry O does is good is enough justification to get rid of someone.
You guys really feel libertarian votes are wasted votes?
2008 NC Election results
Obama 2,142,651
McCain 2,128,474
Difference 14,177
The press loved to say NC had turned Blue. But Barr ran as a Libertarian.
His total 25,722
It's fixin' to happen again this year between Hagan, Tillis and Haugh. Haugh? Who's Haugh? Haugh is the Libertarian who's pulling 2% to 7% of the vote depending on the source you read.
The Libertarians (I have two in the extended family) don't really give a shit about who wins - they just want 2% of the vote in NC so they have an easier time getting on the ballot.
2012
Romney 2,270,395
Obama 2,178,391
Gray (L) 44,515 (0.99%)
Write in 12,071 (0.27%)
Marlboro
10-24-2014, 07:10
2008 NC Election results
Obama 2,142,651
McCain 2,128,474
Difference 14,177
The press loved to say NC had turned Blue. But Barr ran as a Libertarian.
His total 25,722
It's fixin' to happen again this year between Hagan, Tillis and Haugh. Haugh? Who's Haugh? Haugh is the Libertarian who's pulling 2% to 7% of the vote depending on the source you read.
The Libertarians (I have two in the extended family) don't really give a shit about who wins - they just want 2% of the vote in NC so they have an easier time getting on the ballot.
2012
Romney 2,270,395
Obama 2,178,391
Gray (L) 44,515 (0.99%)
Write in 12,071 (0.27%)
libertarians tend to take almost as many votes away from the left, as right. Currently in South Carolina, there is a 'Independent Republican' Ervin. Ervin roughly is taking 1 out of every 6 votes from the Democratic candidate for Governor. The left blames Ralph Nader for Gore losing in 2000. Pete is on point as always.. Tillis very can lose a race he should by just a few votes going to the Libertarian candidate.
libertarians tend to take almost as many votes away from the left, as right. Currently in South Carolina, there is a 'Independent Republican' Ervin. Ervin roughly is taking 1 out of every 6 votes from the Democratic candidate for Governor. The left blames Ralph Nader for Gore losing in 2000. Pete is on point as always.. Tillis very can lose a race he should by just a few votes going to the Libertarian candidate.
Yeah, I keep hearing that all over the place but haven't seen any statistics to back it up.
Heard plenty of Conservative say "I'm pissed off at Republicans, I'm voting third party". Haven't hear any Lib's say "I'm pissed off at Democrats, I'm voting Libertarian."
Lighthouse
10-24-2014, 08:40
Yeah, I keep hearing that all over the place but haven't seen any statistics to back it up.
Heard plenty of Conservative say "I'm pissed off at Republicans, I'm voting third party". Haven't hear any Lib's say "I'm pissed off at Democrats, I'm voting Libertarian."
I agree. Democrats are very much a cult.
Marlboro
10-24-2014, 08:57
Yeah, I keep hearing that all over the place but haven't seen any statistics to back it up.
Heard plenty of Conservative say "I'm pissed off at Republicans, I'm voting third party". Haven't hear any Lib's say "I'm pissed off at Democrats, I'm voting Libertarian."
It isn't they are pissed off, it's they are simply arguing against what they consider "corporatists, and warhawks." The fringe right, and left, overlap on the political spectrum at a certain point.
It isn't they are pissed off, it's they are simply arguing against what they consider "corporatists, and warhawks." The fringe right, and left, overlap on the political spectrum at a certain point.
Do you have any type of survey to back that up?
I'll post this pre election Poll
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2014/GA_InsiderAdvantage_102314.pdf
The Governor poll seems to back your view - but the Senator poll backs mine. Nothing counts but on election day.
Is interesting that a Carter is running.
Marlboro
10-24-2014, 11:27
Do you have any type of survey to back that up?
I'll post this pre election Poll
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2014/GA_InsiderAdvantage_102314.pdf
The Governor poll seems to back your view - but the Senator poll backs mine. Nothing counts but on election day.
Is interesting that a Carter is running.
Check this out --
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/218134-left-blasts-hillary-clinton-in-secret-emails
It shows the disconnect between the 'base' of the left, and the progressive fringe.
Check this out --
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/218134-left-blasts-hillary-clinton-in-secret-emails
It shows the disconnect between the 'base' of the left, and the progressive fringe.
I didn't see "Libertarian" or "Republican" in that story.
I did see voting for maybe Warren over Clinton in the primary and going Green or sitting it out in the general.
Keep looking.
Badger52
10-24-2014, 12:26
Check this out --
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/218134-left-blasts-hillary-clinton-in-secret-emails
It shows the disconnect between the 'base' of the left, and the progressive fringe.Thanks for that link to remind me of another name dropped in that speech I referenced by the CPUSA Chair that he liked: Elizabeth Warren.
Pretty wild Google group that one; I'll bet they're celebrating those emails going public so the NSA aren't the only ones to have them. Wonder how the Billary Empire's daughter runs with this now that she's been made a full-partner & "in charge."
You guys are crazy. You don't even seem to understand that every individual that has the title -- "Quiet Professional" on here is a political goldmine. This is what I dislike about a lot of folks, they don't see the best way to change the system, is be the system.
Don't like the education system? Run for school board.
Don't like allocation of resources in your town? Run for mayor/city council/alderman.
Come on guys, you've spent your entire career watching you & your buddies 6, and thinking on the fly. What you take for granted, MOST of the folks running pay a team for.
I'm so tired of having half the armed services committee having never served, and a congress that doesn't want to give pay raises to the troops.
I'm just saying...
:munchinYou make a statement of what, QPs should do politically however, have you ever walked in our shoes?:confused:
Marlboro
10-25-2014, 11:18
I didn't see "Libertarian" or "Republican" in that story.
I did see voting for maybe Warren over Clinton in the primary and going Green or sitting it out in the general.
Keep looking.
Pete, here is you a study:http://publicreligion.org/research/2013/10/2013-american-values-survey/
Read this for further information on the connectivity:http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00HTQ31TA?btkr=1
Feel free to message me, I'd be more than happy to discuss this topic at length. Unfortunately, I don't check the message board regularly.
You guys really feel libertarian votes are wasted votes?
Votes are never wasted. They either help someone get elected or prevent someone from being elected.
If in an area, the Libertarian party is a major party and viable, then they have a chance of direct influence.
If they are a minor party and organized they can parley influence with a major party. If unorganized, they tend to just be spoilers.
e.g. The Green party is organized and directly influences the DEM party during the Primary. They cannot vote during the Primary, but they effectively influence the DEM party in their party's pick for the General.
IMO, Libertarians need to put down the Cheetos and get organized.
Personally, I feel that Libertarians belong in the GOP tent.
Well, we're not firing up the stogies or popping champagne corks just yet ...
But we do have the cigars loaded in a humidor and the champagne is being chilled.
http://www.redstate.com/2014/10/28/close-doom-colorado-dems/
:munchin
But MR2 is getting soused in the corner - whoopee! :lifter
Badger52
10-28-2014, 16:28
You all don't use the same voting machine supplier out there as Mary-land or Rahm-land, right?
;)
Pete, here is you a study:http://publicreligion.org/research/2013/10/2013-american-values-survey/
Read this for further information on the connectivity:http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00HTQ31TA?btkr=1
Feel free to message me, I'd be more than happy to discuss this topic at length. Unfortunately, I don't check the message board regularly.
The first half of your story deals with "l" libertarians. The second half with "L" Libertarians.
You should know the difference because that story does not back up your claim. Keep digging.
Remember - You are looking for stats saying a good number of D's jump over past the R's to vote for L's.
Airbornelawyer
11-03-2014, 13:16
Hypocrisy, thy name is Daivd Schanzer.
Not surprisingly, the New York Times ran an opinion piece yesterday by a Professor at Duke University, David Schanzer, co-authored by one of his students, entitled "Cancel the Midterms" - http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/opinion/cancel-the-midterms.html?ref=opinion&_r=1
They argue
"There was a time when midterm elections made sense ... . But especially at a time when Americans’ confidence in the ability of their government to address pressing concerns is at a record low, two-year House terms no longer make any sense. We should get rid of federal midterm elections entirely."
I am sure that in 1986 when Democrats recaptured the Senate and in 2006 when Democrats took both houses of Congress, the New York Times was a big advocate for getting rid of midterms. Just as Democrats hate the filibuster when they control the Senate, Democrats hated debt ceiling increases when there was a Republican president, Democrats denounced the so-called "Imperial presidency" when it wasn't their Emperor Barack I, etc.
Please note that any of these arguments might have some merit, and many Republican politicians have been equally hypocritical when the issue disfavored them. But just as an argument may have more merit when you are arguing against your own interest, it appears to have less merit when you only advance the argument when it benefits you.
Among Schanzer's concerns is all the money in politics:
"Much of this money is sought from either highly partisan wealthy individuals or entities with vested interests before Congress. Eliminating midterms would double the amount of time House members could focus on governing and make them less dependent on their donor base.
Another quirk is that, during midterm elections, the electorate has been whiter, wealthier, older and more educated than during presidential elections."
Also:
"To offset the impact of longer congressional terms, this reform might be coupled with term limits that would cap an individual’s total congressional service at, say, 24 years, about the average for a member of Congress today."
Shocklingly enough, Prof. Schanzer is whiter, wealthier (http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2013/08/30/duke-professors-among-highest-paid-nationally), older and more educated than the typical North Carolina voter (OK, maybe that counts as an argument against interest). Also partisan.
Schanzer is quite the expert on long-serving congresscritters. He was from 1996-98 counsel to Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (35 years in the Senate, and technically still there as Senate President), from 1994-96 counsel to Sen. William S. Cohen (24 years in Congress, and only left because Clinton appointed him Secretary of Defense), and from 2003-05 Democratic staff director for the House Committee on Homeland Security (whose ranking Democrat member at the time was Ben Cardin, now 27 years in Congress and counting). And according to Opensecrets.org, this opponent of midterms has given $1,500 this midterm election cycle to the campaign of Rep. David Price (D-NC), who if he wins reelection will begin his 25th year in Congress next year.
Again, does anyone believe the New York Times would have run such a piece the Sunday before a midterm expected to go the Democrats' way?
Edit to add: Overall, Schanzer has given $4450 to Price's campaigns since he's been at Duke. He also gave $1000 to the Gore campaign, $2000 to the Kerry campaign and $5875 to Obama's campaigns. So he is an expert on money in politics from highly partisan individuals.
Badger52
11-03-2014, 15:46
Good breakdown of the article; and a flare on the hypocrisy from some who sit in the High Church of Academia, as well as industry magnates who forgot their roots & that they really wanted .gov out of their lives so they had some maneuver room when they were entrepreneurs (before the word was in vogue). That he calls for term limits (something with which I agree) after the veiled divisive remarks preceding it is laughable.
Seems like he's trying to posture a point that makes things convenient for those elected; not to improve the ability of The People to toss a recalcitrant bum out on their ear if needed - and sooner rather than later. Problem identification is always dependent upon who you ask to define it.
[Off-topic rant] Too much of the electorate is still treating this as a new app, or fantasy league, or reality show - who's raised the most money, who's ahead in the polls (thanx socially-diseased media for doubling down on the electronic mutual-admiration concept), who will "win" the "game"... "and what do you mean I have to get off my couch in order to influence the outcome? Yo, I got a pizza comin'!"[/OTR]
"...Another quirk is that, during midterm elections, the electorate has been whiter, wealthier, older and more educated than during presidential elections. ..."
I'd say right there that he's calling out the LEV (Low Information Voter) and didn't know it.
So the LEV's are the only ones qualified to decide who wins?
(1VB)compforce
11-04-2014, 20:38
OK, I have never been able to figure this part out. Can someone please explain it to me? I look here at the attached image and see Dick Durbin (D-IL) losing by 13,500 votes at 45%-50% with 8% of the vote in and yet they have called the race with Durbin as the winner. How do they call this race that early with Durbin trailing? I get that they "expect" certain areas to vote a certain way. What happens if they don't vote that way, but the other candidate already conceded based on the race being called?
Further up the same attachment there is a race that is called for the guy that is behind by 9% with 24% of the vote counted.
I just don't understand this "calling the race" thing and could use an explanation if anyone has one. I've googled nearly every time I see this inverted win and have never found a good explanation for it.
The Reaper
11-04-2014, 20:46
OK, I have never been able to figure this part out. Can someone please explain it to me? I look here at the attached image and see Dick Durbin (D-IL) losing by 13,500 votes at 45%-50% with 8% of the vote in and yet they have called the race with Durbin as the winner. How do they call this race that early with Durbin trailing? I get that they "expect" certain areas to vote a certain way. What happens if they don't vote that way, but the other candidate already conceded based on the race being called?
Further up the same attachment there is a race that is called for the guy that is behind by 9% with 24% of the vote counted.
I just don't understand this "calling the race" thing and could use an explanation if anyone has one. I've googled nearly every time I see this inverted win and have never found a good explanation for it.
Exit polling.
They know that if it is eventually going to be a run-away, even if the first few returns favor the other candidate, they call it.
TR
Exit polling.
They know that if it is eventually going to be a run-away, even if the first few returns favor the other candidate, they call it.
TR
I seem to recall the MSM had Al Gore leading the exiting polling, they called it for Gore and then they all were burned in the stretch by Bush2.....Al conceded, then reneged his concession and we ended up with weeks of 'Hanging Chads'.
(1VB)compforce
11-04-2014, 21:04
Exit polling.
They know that if it is eventually going to be a run-away, even if the first few returns favor the other candidate, they call it.
TR
OK, so what happens if the exit polls are wrong and a candidate has conceded based on the race being called?
If a candidate had a last second swarm of voters and outran the other after the race had been called based on exit polls, would the candidate actually win regardless of the race having been called? (I truly hope so)
You know, in more than 25 years of voting I've never actually seen an exit poll being taken. To me they seem somewhat like the original white elephant.
The Reaper
11-04-2014, 21:10
OK, so what happens if the exit polls are wrong and a candidate has conceded based on the race being called?
If a candidate had a last second swarm of voters and outran the other after the race had been called based on exit polls, would the candidate actually win regardless of the race having been called? (I truly hope so)
You know, in more than 25 years of voting I've never actually seen an exit poll being taken. To me they seem somewhat like the original white elephant.
He asked why they did it, not if I agreed with it.
Watch the hundreds of races and let me know how often that happens.
TR
(1VB)compforce
11-04-2014, 21:19
He asked why they did it, not if I agreed with it.
Watch the hundreds of races and let me know how often that happens.
TR
I do appreciate the explanation TR. I'm just trying to understand how it works. I'll do some more reading now that you've given me a track to run on. Sometimes it's tough to find information if you have no starting place and don't know the terminology. (Or know the terms but not their relevance)
Thanks again.
Call it at 50%
Back in the old days here in Fayetteville we had a radio personality from 640 AM, Jeff Thompson.
He and his usual D guest would be on the radio live on election night.
As they would explain it - it's not who's ahead now with 50% of the vote in but what precincts were still out.
If the D is ahead with 50% of the vote counted and the big D precincts haven't come in yet - yeah, you can call him the winner.
Right now Tillis is ahead of Hagan 49% to 47% - up by 50,000 votes - but Meklenburg County only has 52% of the vote in and right now they are at 103K for Hagan and 65K for Tillis.
The Reaper
11-04-2014, 22:34
NC is called for Tillis, so we are looking at 7 pickups for the Repubs tonight.
Add LA when the runoff is done for +8.
Alaska will take time to collect and count, could be +9.
Looks like a big win for Repub governors as well.
TR
Airbornelawyer
11-04-2014, 22:51
NC is called for Tillis, so we are looking at 7 pickups for the Repubs tonight.
Add LA when the runoff is done for +8.
Alaska will take time to collect and count, could be +9.
Looks like a big win for Repub governors as well.
TR
Indeed, a big win for Repub governors. Not just high profile races like Scott Walker's, or in so-called red states. The President before the election was trying to spin it as a year of elections in tough states for Democrats, but that doesn't explain Massachusetts and Illinois.
Indeed, a big win for Repub governors. Not just high profile races like Scott Walker's, or in so-called red states. The President before the election was trying to spin it as a year of elections in tough states for Democrats, but that doesn't explain Massachusetts and Illinois.
And Scott Brown made it a close race in a NH Senate race that should really never have been that close.
Now, we watch for the phone and pen.
Airbornelawyer
11-04-2014, 23:00
Regarding the calling of races, it is not just the exit polls.
With an incumbent, another big factor is looking at her prior performance in counties which have reported, and projecting the over/under there with the counties which have yet to report. So if she won a bunch of counties with 55% last time and only 51% this time, etc., you get a -4. So even if a big Dem county where she got 60% last time was left to report, you might apply that -4 and project 56% this time. Then you check your exit polls and ouija boards, and see if that will be enough to carry her across the finish line.
This picture speaks volumes !!!!
:D :D :D :D
Oldschool45B
11-05-2014, 02:47
Who spends millions to get a job that pays roughly $135,000 a year without being bought and paid for? Two sides of the same shitty coin.
That said it IS better than 2nd place, but it is NOT what out Founding Fathers had in mind. I just wish the system had not been so corrupted over the last 200yrs. But it is what it is, and all we can do is use the second box of dissent; and hope to stave off the third box.
ddoering
11-05-2014, 04:14
Now, we watch for the phone and pen.
And the impeachment and trial.:lifter
Badger52
11-05-2014, 05:59
Not coincidentally, the blue spots (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/wisconsin-2014-fall-election-results-map-281509401.html) in addition to the area surrounding the people's enclave of Madison are also U-W campus locations. There be some butt-hurt going on this morning.
On the downside, district-wise, failed to fire an 18-year tick (Ron Kind) who gets to go back to DC. The retired Apache-driver made a good run of it but Kind's big electorate is on the river (another U-W town).
On the upside, 2 Dem ticks in the state assembly are sent packing. These are particularly sweet to me because they were members during the previous Doyle administration who "in a bi-partisan fashion" passed shall-carry, and then swung their vote back in a failure to override the expected veto. Don't let the door hit you in the ass.
That issue was also the subject of a very telling ad by Walker, featuring a lady who'd been assaulted & messaged to let her sisters know that defending oneself was also a matter of choice. Burke had zero precedent to counter that.
Walker had taken about half of the money not needed for totally funding state employees' health insurance and plowed it back into the transportation fund (the so-called "Walker slashes education" ads) & successfully contrasted that against his predecessor who routinely raided it. This also resulted in near universal success for the referendum to lock this up by law, and the registrations, fees & fuel taxes that feed it. No one here wants to pay tolls like down near Chicago for the privilege of driving a stage of the Baja 1000.
POTUS & FLOTUS visits didn't do much for the challenger except to give the kool-aid drinkers something to attend that day. Nice to see Iowa's Joni Ernst pickup one of the Senate seats.
Big win in NC, for unseating of Hagan. Sends a message, you don't work for the people of your State you're Fired!!
I feel that VA is a big upset for the DemocRats, I think VA should be a run off with all the Voter machine issues and that it's under 1% merge. This is the biggest surprise for the DemocRats. They thought they had VA and it, along with NC, slipped away from them.
GOP Must come out and send a strong message to America that they are here for the People that voted for the change. They need to start now to set the stage for 2016. I would love to see GOP, Mitch McConnell, during a press conference stand there with all 350+ bills waiting to the POTUS. Tell America this is everything that your former Senate has been holding back on. These the bills that we will take to your POTUS and work to get them signed. For the ones that don't need his signature we will work with the different sub-committees and get them into motion without his signature.
Yesterday was a great day for America, well if you like change.
ddoering
11-05-2014, 06:16
I'd rather see Mitch roll every one of those bills up and shove them up Harry's ass.
Badger52
11-05-2014, 06:50
I'd rather see Mitch roll every one of those bills up and shove them up Harry's ass.And light the fuse.
PedOncoDoc
11-05-2014, 06:52
I'd rather see Mitch roll every one of those bills up and shove them up Harry's ass.
That is one odd fetish you have there... :D
I think many are pleased with the results of yesterday's election - I'll be pleased once I see some productivity, and no sooner.
Badger52
11-05-2014, 07:59
Not understanding the full demographic in the Rocky Mountain High state I'm curious how these statistically might've played for/against Beauprez.
:rolleyes:
This picture speaks volumes !!!!
He looks like he has something running down his leg ;)
Streck-Fu
11-05-2014, 08:30
I'll copy and save that.....thank you very much.
This picture speaks volumes !!!!
:D :D :D :D
Golf1echo
11-05-2014, 09:20
Not understanding the full demographic in the Rocky Mountain High state I'm curious how these statistically might've played for/against Beauprez.
:rolleyes:
Never learned much about Beauprez other than he was a banker, definitely no Gardner.
Note to future Rep Candidates in El Paso County, Colo.- Get Bloomberg involved, Republican votes out numbered democratic votes 2-1.
This map correctly examples the mood of the country.
http://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/elections-results-2014/#house
I believe it is a county map. If so, a demographic profile might inform us as to why, those particular counties did not follow the rest of the country.
Who spends millions to get a job that pays roughly $135,000 a year without being bought and paid for?
American politics in a nut shell.
Team Sergeant
11-05-2014, 10:17
I'm sure Harry Hempy took away 22k worth of votes from the left-wingers......;)
I believe it is a county map.
That's a district map.
Pat
First things first...Welcome back Dusty :lifter
Second, I agree with PedOncoDoc. I'll be pleased when I start seeing actions back up rhetoric.
MD had a big win, especially considering that he didn't shell out nearly as much in campaign monies as the dem. Now, the GOP needs to seriously get their collective schiza together and implement real change in the next two years. If they can't, ol' saddlebags will use their ineffectiveness to her advantage in 2016.
Badger52
11-05-2014, 11:23
This map correctly examples the mood of the country.
http://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/elections-results-2014/#house
I believe it is a county map. If so, a demographic profile might inform us as to why, those particular counties did not follow the rest of the country.Here's a county map for up here which I posted earlier (http://www.politico.com/2014-election/results/map/governor/wisconsin/#.VFpbEcnp_Fw).
The demographic info is that most of the blue areas are (or are branches of) lib-trending spots with a big University-influenced rice-bowl or have deep metro populations. Those districts cross other counties & cause an often-seen situation where the metro area's population outnumbers all the surrounding conservatives (who tend not to like being in the corner of the aquarium with all the guppies).
This map better shows imo, just for one example state, the current mood (and last night's vote) better than just a district map. That a newcomer didn't quite unseat an 18-yr incumbent tick in the House is the only thing that barred running the table.
The Reaper
11-05-2014, 11:25
Looks like the Senate race in Alaska has been called for the Republican.
+8, and LA will go to the Republicans as well.
This was a huge night, if the Republicans can stick with their agenda and work around the POTUS without giving away the farm.
I would like to thank you Coloradans for all of your hard work.
And welcome back, Dusty!
TR
Not understanding the full demographic in the Rocky Mountain High state I'm curious how these statistically might've played for/against Beauprez.
:rolleyes:
Please see this post (https://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=567027#post567027).
Badger52
11-05-2014, 11:25
First things first...Welcome back Dusty :lifter
And what he said! ;)
Badger52
11-05-2014, 11:30
Please see this post (https://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=567027#post567027).Thanks for that. Frack.
PhyrricVictory
11-05-2014, 12:12
I'm pretty salty that Cuomo managed to win the governor position in NY again following this election. I'll quickly be looking for a way to extricate myself from this state. The amount of votes coming from New York City are disgusting to sway the vote for the entire state like this.
Badger52
11-05-2014, 12:52
2 gun initiatives on that ballot. The passage of I-594 closely follows the Oct. 24 shooting at Marysville-Pilchuck High School in Marysville, Washington, that left three students dead and three more injured.
I-591: This measure would prohibit government agencies from confiscating guns or other firearms from citizens without due process, or from requiring background checks on firearm recipients unless a uniform national standard is required.
The Effect Of The Proposed Measure If Approved
This measure would prohibit government agencies from requiring background checks on the recipient of a firearm unless a uniform national standard is required.
This measure would also state that government agencies may not confiscate firearms from citizens without due process.
Should this measure be enacted into law?
No
$1.2M donated toward this measure from "Protect Our Gun Rights"
---------------------
I-594: This measure would apply currently used criminal and public safety background checks by licensed dealers to all firearm sales and transfers, including gun show and online sales, with specific exceptions.
The Effect Of The Proposed Measure If Approved
This measure would apply the background check requirements currently used for firearm sales by licensed dealers to all firearm sales and transfers where at least one party is in Washington. Background checks would thus be required not only for sales and transfers of firearms through firearms dealers, but also at gun shows, online, and between unlicensed private individuals. Background checks would be required for any sale or transfer of a firearm, whether for money or as a gift or loan, with specific exceptions described below. Background checks would be required whether the firearm involved is a pistol or another type of firearm. Violations of these requirements would be crimes.
Certain other temporary transfers of a firearm would also not require a background check. These include temporary transfers between spouses, and temporary transfers for use at a shooting range, in a competition, or for performances. A temporary transfer to a person under age eighteen for hunting, sporting, or education would not require a background check. Other temporary transfers for lawful hunting also would not require a background check.
A person who inherited a firearm other than a pistol upon the death of its former owner would not be required to undergo a background check. A person who inherited a pistol would either have to lawfully transfer the pistol within 60 days or inform the department of licensing that he or she intended to keep the pistol.
Should this measure be enacted into law?
Yes
Nearly $12M spent by the usual Bloomberg/Giffords/Gates/Balmer groups, outspending the other initiative by 10:1.
Link to WA stuff. (https://weiapplets.sos.wa.gov/MyVote/OnlineVotersGuide/Measures?countyCode=xx&electionId=54)
Related background article. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/05/washington-state-background-checks_n_6103282.html)
If one is making an exodus from a New England state this may not be the azimuth of choice.
:rolleyes:
Airbornelawyer
11-05-2014, 13:04
A few random observations:
1. Although a few races such as the NH, NC and CO Senate races were as close as expected, a lot of races that were being portrayed as close, and where a lot of money and effort went, were really not even close. These include the GA, IA and KS Senate races. And in Virginia, where Warner will likely still win, a double digit lead in the polls turned into a race so close it may lead to a recount. I was surprised by this, and really surprised by the Maryland governor's race.
2. In no statewide race did the Libertarian candidate break 5%, and in most it was nowhere near that. Do libertarians need to put down the bong and make up their minds, accepting that this is a two-party system and if they want to effect change, they need to fight for it within the party that most represents their priorities? Same goes for Greens. This is not Germany, where a third party can be a necessary coalition partner, ensuring a full hearing for its policy priorities. In the US, they can really only act as spoilers, self-righteously keeping their virtue intact while in reality only advancing the agenda of the party further from their most important stated principles.
In Virginia, the current margin has Democrat Warner ahead by less than 12,000 votes over Republican Gillespie, while Libertarian Sarvis has over 53,000. Many big-L Libertarians would probably have stayed home, or in whatever dorm room or flophouse they currently reside, and a few liberaltarian types might have supported Warner, but if only even a quarter of these believers in limited government voted for the Republican, maybe the Democrat would have lost in Virginia already. Instead, they probably ensured that Virginia will continue to be represented by what the media describe as one of the Senate's most moderate Democrats, which apparently means he voted with Obama 96% of the time instead of 97%.
And before anyone jumps on me, please know that I am being deliberately provocative. I know that there are many issues where libertarians differ strongly with majorities in both parties, especially on the national security state. And I am fully aware that the national GOP has not exactly been the strongest advocate for limited government when it is in power, to say the least. But the question remains, for libertarians and Tea Party activists alike, if they really want to effect change, is it more likely from within?
A test of that proposition may be in both Kansas and Mississippi. First, were Roberts' and Cochran's margins of victory evidence that supporters of their conservative primary challengers did not stay home on general election day? Secong, will Roberts and Cochran be chastened and humbled by the strengths of the challenges and alter their policy priorities accordingly?
3. On the other side of the aisle, will these results really change the Democrats? Personally, I think not. Many Democrats including the President are already dismissing the results as local, with no real implications for their national agenda. Obama, who infamously claimed that while he was not, his agenda was on the ballot, of late has begun blaming an unfavorable election map. With two exceptions, Colorado and Iowa, so the view holds, Republicans only picked up seats in states won by Romney in 2012. And those 15 electoral votes would not have changed the election outcome, so Obama's 2012 mandate remains intact. Further, as alluded to in the New York Times article I discussed above, the midterm results may be dismissed as the result of the midterm electorate being too white, male, old and wealthy to reflect the nation as a whole.
The test of this may be in Louisiana. Having doubled down on her claims of racism and sexism just before the election, will Landrieu triple down for the December runoff? Since it is expected that Tea Party supporters of Rob Maness will support Bill Cassidy in the runoff, Landrieu will likely conclude that the only way to keep her seat will be to race-bait, in the hopes of ginning up black turnout. Will national Democrats join her, or will they write her off since it won't change control of the Senate anyway?
4. Notwithstanding the results yesterday, is the GOP doomed in 2016? As many have noted, now the onus is on Congressional Republicans to advance an agenda for the next two years. But they don't have the White House or a filibuster-proof majority. So all Obama and Congressional Democrats have to do is obstruct the GOP at various turns, and then in 2016, relying on a compliant media to carry water for them, blame the GOP for a failure to fix everything and then hypocritically claim to be running against Washington. Many pundits are predicting that Obama will be more worried about protecting his legacy, so he may work with Republicans to advance some measures that he can claim as his own, a la Clinton and welfare reform. But I remain convinced that Obama is too much of an ideologue, as are many Democrats, especially in the House. They believe they can take the short-term hits, because in the longer run with immigration and expanding the number of Americans dependent on government through Obamacare and the like, a permanent Democrat majority is just around the corner. This is why there was no "course correction" after the 2010 shellacking, and why Pelosi was reelected as leader of House Democrats after presiding over their worst defeat in the post-war era. Also the race-baiting and war on women stuff is not likely to go away, even in light of yesterday's results, because I believe that they still believe that will be the key to turnout in 2016.
Streck-Fu
11-05-2014, 14:00
A university in Missouri several years performed an experiment with their political science majors in which they to go through the process of running for office to the point doing everything necessary to get on the ballot.
What they learned is that campaign laws are so cumbersome and prohibitive that it literally takes a team of lawyers and a shit load of money for legal costs just to appear on the national ballots.
Almost all the students violated at least a few laws that would have resulted in the rejection of their campaigns.
Bottom line is that both parties have crafted the requirements to be eligible for election to be so cumbersome that it is nearly impossible to make a dent against the two dominant parties.
And I do think that many voters that consider themselves small government libertarians cost the GOP votes far more than the DNC.
Surprise surprise surprise ! The POTUS is on the tube and he is suddenly the great uniter, I know he is lying, his lips are moving.
Now for all those gleeful republicans who were elected don't waste this opportunity, Lead Lead Lead.
You Colorado folks set the example, thank you!
Dusty welcome back !
:D
Dude. :D
I heard in IL our new governor took 101 of 102 counties (99% of the votes counted)...but quinnochio hadn't conceded as of this morning. :rolleyes:
Not to hijack the important insightful commentary by ABL, the attached blog article clearly waves a red flag, voting fraud. In two states, Illinois and Maryland, electronic voting machines were rig to switch vote from republican to democrat. To do that, you have to write a code program, then install the program in the machine. It has nothing to do with calibrating a touch screen for sensitivity. e.g., think of the yes/no on credit card machines for cash back, the machines are programmed to respond to your decision.
I fear, that in the near future our vote won't matter, unless we address this issue and ban electronic voting nationally.
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-and-friends/blog/2014/10/30/expert-confirms-voting-machines-illinois-and-maryland-rigged-democrats
The ball is now in the R's court - I hope they can finally come up with a game plan that can score points - if not, the potential for a really scary "L" in 2016 looms.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/why-the-senate-gop-takeover-might-actually-help-hillary-clinton/2014/11/05/d39ca90e-6442-11e4-9fdc-d43b053ecb4d_story.html
Richard
2017 Election
Virginia's election may be one to watch this November, if Gillespie wins, it will be a bell ringing wake up call for the Republican party and signal doom for the DP.
2017 Election
Virginia's election may be one to watch this November, if Gillespie wins, it will be a bell ringing wake up call for the Republican party and signal doom for the DP.
McAulliffe has a proven himself a real nut job, I think Gillespie has a good chance of pulling it out.
the squid
11-11-2017, 10:03
McAulliffe has a proven himself a real nut job, I think Gillespie has a good chance of pulling it out.
Guess not.
Guess not.
McAulliffe has still a proven himself to be a real nut job. From what I have read Gillespie fell quite short in the Northern part of Virginia. At the same time Deblasio gets reelected in New York, and polls (if you can believe them) said most voters would prefer that Confederate Statues stay put and that 82% of those polls would re-elect Trump.
The only thing I could say for sure these days is that the political atmosphere is extremely polarized.
So how do you feel about Moore in Alabama?
the squid
11-11-2017, 19:47
McAulliffe has still a proven himself to be a real nut job. From what I have read Gillespie fell quite short in the Northern part of Virginia. At the same time Deblasio gets reelected in New York, and polls (if you can believe them) said most voters would prefer that Confederate Statues stay put and that 82% of those polls would re-elect Trump.
The only thing I could say for sure these days is that the political atmosphere is extremely polarized.
So how do you feel about Moore in Alabama?
Moore is a theocratic nut job. I don't know if the accusations made against him are true, but some of the defenses (Jim Ziegler's, specifically) of him make me nauseous, justifying pedophilia in the context of Joseph and Mary theoretically being equally far apart in age is beyond the pale. It's embarrassing. Even before then, I'm not going to vote for a guy who has expressed ambivalence over whether or not homosexuals should be executed.
Moore is a theocratic nut job. I don't know if the accusations made against him are true, but some of the defenses (Jim Ziegler's, specifically) of him make me nauseous, justifying pedophilia in the context of Joseph and Mary theoretically being equally far apart in age is beyond the pale. It's embarrassing. Even before then, I'm not going to vote for a guy who has expressed ambivalence over whether or not homosexuals should be executed.
Politics seems to attract nut jobs of all types, for the most part the best and brightest steer clear of political ambitions.
Morally you and me are on the same wave length, I suspect everyone on this board is. Regardless of the Law, if a 30 some year old pervert fondled my 14 year old he better pray I never find him.............but not all that long ago it was excepted.
Unfortunately pedophilia (all paraphilia's for that matter) is only what the law makes it, if the law states the age of consent is 5 years old then it would be perfectly legal for an older person to have their way with your 5 year old child. My Brother in Lawyer has told me on several occasions that ' It doesn't make any difference what is morally right or common sense, all that matters is 'The LAW'.
Yep....you would defend a child predator if The Law allowed it.........GOD DAMN IT PAS that is not the point! Quit wasting my F-ing time!
The Law is the conscience of the Legal Trade.....For example, it appears that in 1880 the LEGAL age of consent in Alabama was 10. Then it appears in 1920 the conscience changed and the Alabama LAW changed the legal age for sexual intercourse to 16, which still stands today. NAMBLA lobbiest are working hard to turn back clock on age of consent....within past 10 years gays have become a protected class, boys are girls and girls are boys, and everyone can legally shower and piss in the same bathroom.
Aside from the fact that Roy Moore's alleged mis-deeds took place some 40 years ago, which would make it difficult collect evidence and actually charge him with a crime........by legal definition was the alleged fondling or touching a crime? Was it intentional or unintentional contact?
In 1907 Kansas my 31 year old GG-Grandfather married my GG-Grandmother when she was 15, they ended up having about 15 children together. 1907 isn't the 1970's but even in the 1970's things of such nature where still accepted in some areas of the country.
Badger52
11-11-2017, 21:52
From what I have read Gillespie fell quite short in the Northern part of Virginia.From what I've heard anecdotally from some folks still in the area, it is now basically just a suburb of the District of Cesspools - in the interest of diversity, Maryland gets one too. It's a big swamp, that thing which originally was supposed to be a very small piece of real estate to only house the actual government offices. Is there such a thing as "the cure kills the patient" ?
the squid
11-11-2017, 23:15
Aside from the fact that Roy Moore's alleged mis-deeds took place some 40 years ago, which would make it difficult collect evidence and actually charge him with a crime........by legal definition was the alleged fondling or touching a crime? Was it intentional or unintentional contact?
In 1907 Kansas my 31 year old GG-Grandfather married my GG-Grandmother when she was 15, they ended up having about 15 children together. 1907 isn't the 1970's but even in the 1970's things of such nature where still accepted in some areas of the country.
At the time of the alleged act, the legal age of consent in Alabama was 16, if I am correct, making it illegal at the time. As to your grandfather, that was 100 years ago. Most of us are no better than the times we live in. I mean that respectfully. No reasonable person would judge him against a standard that didn’t exist back then.
Roy Moore is a different story. He’s garbage, even if it’s not true. I will be voting for Doug Jones. That’s not a popular thing to say here. Above partisan ideologies, I’d like to believe that the people we elect to office are compassionate, decent people. Most Democrats aren’t Marxists anymore than most Republicans are racists. I hope we can one day move past the hyper partisanship and once again recognize the humanity in the people we disagree with.
He’s garbage...
Explain, please. With facts.
the squid
11-12-2017, 10:19
Explain, please. With facts.
I'm not going to vote for a guy who cannot give a decisive answer on whether or not homosexuals should be executed: http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/11/politics/kfile-roy-moore-kevin-swanson/index.html
Or who believes that the decision legalizing gay marriage was worse than the Dred Scott decision: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/356844-roy-moore-scotus-gay-marriage-decision-even-worse-than-1857-pro-slavery
Or who pontificates on returning to our "Constitutional roots" but ignores something as clear as the no religious test clause: http://www.wnd.com/2006/12/39271/
Or who goes beyond mere disagreement and just plain lies, arguing NFL players who knelt "broke the law": http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/356035-roy-moore-nfl-players-protesting-anthem-are-breaking-the-law
Is that sufficient for your purposes?
I vividly recall my father driving me from Shreveport, LA to the Vicksburg National Park in and around 1972. We stopped at a little place in-between to get gas and relieve ourselves. That establishment still in 1972, almost 100 years after the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation had White ONLY facilities and Blacks were not allowed inside. Whites openly discriminated against blacks.
All of that was illegal, just as having sex a person under the age of consent, but it was acceptable in that part of country......old habits are hard to break, it takes several generations to change the tide of what is acceptable.
Team Sergeant
11-12-2017, 10:27
I'm not going to vote for a guy who cannot give a decisive answer on whether or not homosexuals should be executed: http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/11/politics/kfile-roy-moore-kevin-swanson/index.html
Or who believes that the decision legalizing gay marriage was worse than the Dred Scott decision: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/356844-roy-moore-scotus-gay-marriage-decision-even-worse-than-1857-pro-slavery
Or who pontificates on returning to our "Constitutional roots" but ignores something as clear as the no religious test clause: http://www.wnd.com/2006/12/39271/
Or who goes beyond mere disagreement and just plain lies, arguing NFL players who knelt "broke the law": http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/356035-roy-moore-nfl-players-protesting-anthem-are-breaking-the-law
Is that sufficient for your purposes?
lol, cnn and wnd quoted, that might be a record on this website. You really need to learn to assess your "sources".
There is only one reason I vote right of center:
Freedom
Everything else is mnutia.
I'm not going to vote for a guy who cannot give a decisive answer on whether or not homosexuals should be executed: http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/11/politics/kfile-roy-moore-kevin-swanson/index.html
Or who believes that the decision legalizing gay marriage was worse than the Dred Scott decision: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/356844-roy-moore-scotus-gay-marriage-decision-even-worse-than-1857-pro-slavery
Or who pontificates on returning to our "Constitutional roots" but ignores something as clear as the no religious test clause: http://www.wnd.com/2006/12/39271/
Or who goes beyond mere disagreement and just plain lies, arguing NFL players who knelt "broke the law": http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/356035-roy-moore-nfl-players-protesting-anthem-are-breaking-the-law
Is that sufficient for your purposes?
Yet....
A serial sexual predator named Bill Clinton and a promoter of the Harvey Weinstein lifestyle named Hugh Hefner are considered by many as ICON's of society.
Who is judged is largely predicated on profit.
the squid
11-12-2017, 10:41
lol, cnn and wnd quoted, that might be a record on this website. You really need to learn to assess your "sources".
There is only one reason I vote right of center:
Freedom
Everything else is mnutia.
The WND link was to an op ed written by Moore, and the CNN article was referencing a quote of his on a radio show a few years back. I can draw my own conclusions based off of the content contained therein.
As I said, Roy Moore is a theocrat. There’s nothing about him that supports freedom.
the squid
11-12-2017, 10:43
Yet....
A serial sexual predator named Bill Clinton and a promoter of the Harvey Weinstein lifestyle named Hugh Hefner are considered by many as ICON's of society.
Who is judged is largely predicated on profit.
This isn’t a zero sum game.
One can be simultaneously disgusted by Weinstein and Moore.
Team Sergeant
11-12-2017, 11:49
The WND link was to an op ed written by Moore, and the CNN article was referencing a quote of his on a radio show a few years back. I can draw my own conclusions based off of the content contained therein.
As I said, Roy Moore is a theocrat. There’s nothing about him that supports freedom.
You are wrong and have become nothing but a forum troll.
By supporting the 2nd Amendment Moore does in fact support freedom. Fact not some deluded opinion.
Enjoy your liberal socialist communist brainwashing elsewhere.
This isn’t a zero sum game.
One can be simultaneously disgusted by Weinstein and Moore.
While I do enjoy seeing Weinstein thrown to the wolves, they are only allegations at this point. In Harvey's defense it is known that many woman and men have put themselves in these situations to further their careers or get some benefits like back stages passes. A guy who paints for me used to play for a pretty well known rock'n'roll band, he has some great stories. Drugs flowed, sex acts happened and no one questioned anyones age.
I am quite sure we could get very similar dirt as Weinstein on the vast majority (if not all) of the politicians in DC. If the DOJ decided to raid LGBT bars across the US I would wager they would find a significant number of underaged patrons who engage in sexual acts with much older persons.
Who gets smeared and who doesn't is all about controlling the narrative, swaying the minds of voters and winning the game.
Everything that is happening is part of a zero sum game that is being played by the critters in DC and their handlers. Bezo's and the Washington Post did not go after Moore to rid the world of a pedophile, they went after Moore only because Bezo's supports the rodent looking Democrat Doug Jones.
I'm not going to vote for a guy who cannot give a decisive answer on whether or not homosexuals should be executed: http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/11/politics/kfile-roy-moore-kevin-swanson/index.html
Or who believes that the decision legalizing gay marriage was worse than the Dred Scott decision: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/356844-roy-moore-scotus-gay-marriage-decision-even-worse-than-1857-pro-slavery
Or who pontificates on returning to our "Constitutional roots" but ignores something as clear as the no religious test clause: http://www.wnd.com/2006/12/39271/
Or who goes beyond mere disagreement and just plain lies, arguing NFL players who knelt "broke the law": http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/356035-roy-moore-nfl-players-protesting-anthem-are-breaking-the-law
Is that sufficient for your purposes?
I see that Team Sergeant has already sent you to the cornfield, but I think I'll take the advice of Mark Levin and the others on the list below:
Mark Levin – Host of “The Mark Levin Show” and Editor-in-Chief of Conservative Review
Initially a supporter of Mo Brooks, Levin switched his endorsement to Moore in the run-off. Discussing President Donald Trump’s decision to endorse Luther Strange, Levin accused Trump of stabbing “every conservative in this country” in the back.
“Now, I have to say, the president of the United States did something yesterday that was a stab the back to every conservative in this country,” Levin said. “His candidate in Alabama is Luther Strange,” he added. “Luther Strange is in Mitch McConnell’s back pocket. The man has been there six months. He’s a crony. He can’t fill Jeff Sessions’ shoes. He’s terrible. — even has some ethical issues swirling around him. But it doesn’t matter to McConnell, just like Thad Cochran in Mississippi.”
25 Key Conservative Endorsements (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/25/25-key-conservative-endorsements-of-judge-roy-moore-in-alabama-primary/)
MARK LEVIN Exposes WaPo Hit Piece on Judge Moore As Complete Fabrication (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/11/mark-levin-exposes-wapo-hit-piece-judge-moore-complete-fabrication/)
Pat
Unfortunately pedophilia (all paraphilia's for that matter) is only what the law makes it, if the law states the age of consent is 5 years old then it would be perfectly legal for an older person to have their way with your 5 year old child. My Brother in Lawyer has told me on several occasions that ' It doesn't make any difference what is morally right or common sense, all that matters is 'The LAW'.
Yep....you would defend a child predator if The Law allowed it.........GOD DAMN IT PAS that is not the point! Quit wasting my F-ing time!
The Law is the conscience of the Legal Trade.....For example, it appears that in 1880 the LEGAL age of consent in Alabama was 10. Then it appears in 1920 the conscience changed and the Alabama LAW changed the legal age for sexual intercourse to 16, which still stands today. NAMBLA lobbiest are working hard to turn back clock on age of consent....within past 10 years gays have become a protected class, boys are girls and girls are boys, and everyone can legally shower and piss in the same bathroom.
Just to substantiate my comments earlier....
France to reassess child sex laws after controversial cases
Ms Schiappa said her government was debating a defined age for irrefutable non-consent, between 13 and 15, as part of a new anti-sexism and sexual violence bill to be introduced in 2018.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41966245
https://www.apnews.com/51dcc80f33394c86a655bf272ceb5599