SAINT LEO, Fla. /PRNewswire/ — In Florida, Donald Trump is maintaining his lead among GOP presidential candidates, getting the support of 41.4 percent of likely Republican primary voters surveyed this week by the Saint Leo University Polling Institute.
Florida’s own Marco Rubio trailed behind, attracting just 22.8 percent of the 500 Republicans surveyed in the online poll. As for other GOP candidates, 12.4 percent favored U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, and 10.8 percent will vote for former Ohio Governor John Kasich. Another 12.6 percent said they are undecided.
The poll also surveyed 500 likely Democratic Florida primary voters and found U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strongly in the lead, with 59.4 percent selecting her over U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Sanders supporters amounted to 27 percent of those polled, meaning he was more than 32 points behind Clinton. The proportion of undecided Democrats was 13.6 percent.
Political science instructor Frank Orlando said that Marco Rubio is under intense pressure in his home state. “If he loses Tuesday, he’s effectively done,” said Orlando. “Even if he wins, the road is still very difficult, but one could see him gaining some momentum back and surviving the process. He needs to use Thursday night’s debate performance and all the ground game he can manage to change the tide in a hurry.”
Trump’s results showed broad appeal, but more so among men, particularly among white males. In the poll, 47.3 percent of males said they would vote for Trump compared to 34.2 percent of females. “If he does end up being the [Republican] nominee, we might witness the greatest gender gap in recorded history,” said Orlando.
On the Democratic side, Orlando sees Clinton’s poll results foreshadowing victory in the Florida primary. “Being down by 32 is quite a mountain to climb,” Orlando said. “Also, Florida has a higher minority population and a larger proportion of older voters. Both of these things help Clinton.”
ABOUT THE SAINT LEO UNIVERSITY POLLING INSTITUTE
The Saint Leo University Polling Institute survey results about Florida and national politics, public policy issues, Pope Francis’ popularity, and other topics, can be found here: http://polls.saintleo.edu. You can also follow the institute on Twitter @saintleopolls.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/hillary-trump-e1457774009751.jpg360640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2016-03-12 04:13:592016-03-13 08:57:47Trump and Clinton Likely Winners in Florida Primary Races
New York City values are going through the roof. And it’s not just real estate. A prime story the last many days has been the GOP debate dust-up between Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz. After the senator impugned “New York values” in an effort to call into question the businessman’s conservative bona fides, Trump responded with an impassioned defense of New Yorkers’ character. Trump won the exchange on style with rhetorical effectiveness, but, frankly, Cruz was right on substance.
This is not a commentary on whether Trump exemplifies NY values. In fact, I love most of what The Donald is saying; furthermore, while I have great respect for Cruz, the fact that no other candidate Thursday night could join Trump in supporting a halt to Muslim immigration — a common-sense measure — calls their qualifications for the presidency into question. But this isn’t a commentary on that, either, or on NY values, although I will touch on them. This article is about something far deeper.
All of us generalize. And most of us bristle at generalizations we don’t’ like — whether true or not. It’s then that we, waxing emotional, may complain about the “folly of generalization.”
Now, it may come as a shock to the critics of mine who suppose I live in West Virginia and eat chicken-fried steak, but I was born in NY and grew up in NYC — the Bronx, to be precise. And believe me, there are NY values (along with an ever decreasing number of NY virtues). Moreover, as Cruz said, most people know what they are. Trump certainly does; after all, he referenced his NY values in a 1999 interview. And while radio host and Trump supporter Michael Savage, another man I greatly respect, took exception to Cruz’ remarks, I remember when he complained on air that Vermont was ruined and became Sandersized when too many New Yorkers moved there.
What are NY values? Well, state residents elected a governor who said in 2014 that pro-life, pro-Second Amendment conservatives “have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are’”; and the Big Apple elevated to mayor Bolshevik Bill, a Marxist who honeymooned in Cuba and once raised money for the Sandinistas. You figure it out.
My real concern here, however, is not how people value New Yorkers or Cruz or Trump, but how they value generalization itself. For our refusal to properly generalize is one of the characteristic faults of our time — and a dangerous one at that.
Here’s a good example: if it’s wrong to generalize about New Yorkers because, in principle, it’s wrong to generalize, how can we then generalize about terrorists or Muslims? Doesn’t it make it harder to justify a halt to Muslim immigration if generalization is taken off the table? So some may get offended and say “Not all New Yorkers are liberals,” but this is reminiscent of liberals opposing common-sense profiling and saying “Not all Muslims are terrorists” (or “Not all terrorists are Muslim”). In point of fact, the percentage of Muslims who are terrorists is lower than the percentage of New Yorkers who are liberal, but this is irrelevant. The fact that virtually all the terrorists bedeviling us are Muslim is significant and indicates the importance of honest examination of Islamic values — which, like NY values, certainly exist.
The reality is that “not all _____ are _____” is not a valid argument against generalization, only reflective of a misunderstanding of it. If I say “Men are taller than women,” it’s silly to respond “But not all men are taller than all women!” After all, I didn’t say “all” and wasn’t implying the absence of individual variation; rather, I was referring to men and women as groups. And just as we must judge every individual as an individual and not paint everyone with the same brush, we must judge an individual group as an individual group and not paint every one with the same brush.
In fact, the only reason we can even identify groups as “groups” is that there are differences among them. And barring the rare cases in which groups are differentiated solely by location (as when dividing a class of boys into two groups placed at different tables), those differences are often neither arbitrary nor insignificant. Is location the only thing differentiating Afghans from Americans? Is location the only thing differentiating New Yorkers from Alabamans? Just as there’ll be very different government if you replace the 320 million Americans in the US with 320 million Muslims, there’ll be very different state government if you replace the 4.8 million Alabamans in Alabama with average New Yorkers.
In fairness, most NY counties without big population centers are red. “Aha,” you say, “what about those rural values in the Empire State?!” Yes, there can be sub-groups within groups, and there is a general ideological divide between the woods and the hoods. But the point is that speaking of “rural values” is a generalization, too — and a correct one.
Why does this matter? Question: who’s in closer touch with reality, someone who only understands individual variation or someone who also understands group variation? In fact, the latter is necessary for survival. Just as being able to judge individual character (as when choosing a babysitter) is important, so is being able to judge group character (related to this is being able to properly judge what faults are found mostly in a given group, even if they’re exhibited by only a minority in the group). This is especially true given that understanding group character aids in assessing individual character.
This is not synonymous with prejudice. It rather is part of profiling, which, to paraphrase Dr. Walter Williams, is a method by which we can make determinations based on scant information when the cost of obtaining more information is too high. For example, since an Israeli airport-security agent can’t spend a month living with and becoming acquainted with every traveler, he must make judgments based on group associations; thus, knowing not all Muslims are terrorists but virtually all Mideast terrorists are Muslim, he’ll scrutinize a Muslim flier more closely.
We all make such generalization/profiling-based judgments. A stranded woman motorist may refuse to roll down her window and accept aid from a young man with greasy hair who’s peppered with tattoos and body-piercings; of course, he could conceivably be well-meaning, but this is a situation where she really does have to judge the book by its cover. Likewise, she may refuse to lower her window for any man, knowing that while most men aren’t rapists, most all rapists are men. I’m not hiring a member of the Communist Party USA as a babysitter no matter how pleasant the person appears. And not all dogs bite, but it’s still a good policy to not pet strange dogs.
Doctors also must consider group characteristics, to do their patients justice. For example, understanding that Pima Indians have the world’s highest diabetes rate and that black men’s prostate-cancer rate is twice white men’s can serve as indicators for screening. And only women are routinely examined for breast cancer even though men occasionally develop the disease.
Of course, no good person wants generalization to descend into prejudice, a fault man so often exhibits. But to consequently dismiss generalization, and thus throw out of the baby with the bathwater, is much like dispensing with medical diagnostics merely because witch doctors have existed. Moreover, note that since “prejudice” is defined as “an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason,” such an uninformed, unfavorable opinion of generalization is a prejudice itself. And it’s a prejudice that can get you killed.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump_cruz-700x466-e1449573902550.jpg368636Selwyn Dukehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSelwyn Duke2016-01-21 06:45:572016-01-21 06:45:57Trump, Cruz and New York Values
BOCA RATON, Florida /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Donald Trump has surged nearly 12 points in the last two months and is closing on half of the GOP vote in Florida, where Hillary Clinton has improved in all head-to-head match-ups against GOP front runners, according to a new poll by the Florida Atlantic UniversityBusiness and Economics Polling Initiative (FAU BEPI).
The survey began Jan. 15, the day after the latest GOP debate, and concluded Jan. 18, the day following the most recent Democratic debate.
Trump leads the GOP field in Florida with 47.6 percent; followed by Ted Cruz at 16.3 percent; Marco Rubio at 11.1 percent; and Jeb Bush at 9.5 percent. Ben Carson fell from third to fifth as his support dropped from 14.5 percent in November 2015 to just 3.3 percent in this latest poll. Cruz gained more than six points from the November 2015 poll, while Rubio lost more than seven points, and Bush gained six-tenths of a point.
With his support growing in each of the polls BEPI has conducted since September 2015, Trump has clearly seized momentum in Florida, where he enjoys a 70 percent favorability rating among GOP voters.
“At this point, Donald Trump is simply crushing the opposition in the Florida Republican primary,” said Kevin Wagner, Ph.D., associate professor of political science at FAU and a research fellow of the Initiative.
On the Democratic side, Clinton has strengthened her position in head-to-head match-ups with the GOP front runners. Clinton has turned a three-point deficit against Cruz in November into a five-point lead, while pulling even with Rubio after trailing him by seven points two months earlier. Clinton also closed the gap on Trump by six points and now trails the GOP frontrunner 47 to 44.3 percent. However, Bush leads Clinton in Florida 45 to 41.5 percent.
Clinton also maintains a 36-point lead over Bernie Sanders (62.2 to 25.9 percent), despite losing seven points from her 43-point margin in November.
“Clinton continues to hold a solid lead on the Democratic side in Florida,” said Monica Escaleras, Ph.D., director of the BEPI. “She’s also performing much better against all the GOP front runners, including Trump.”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/TRUMP-THUMB-UP-e1453370968604.png360640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2016-01-21 05:10:012016-01-21 05:10:01Trump Surges to 48 Percent in Florida
One of my readers recently replied to me that he had been a Rand Paul supporter but really couldn’t see what Rand had done that was consistent with what he talks about.
Here’s a recent campaign speech, given in Boise, Idaho, about 2 weeks ago, August 27th:
After watching Rand’s speech, I noticed a comment from viewer “Nate Dawg”. I was rather impressed and, after some fact-checking, editing, personalizing and adding a few links, I am happy to answer my reader’s concerns:
Is Rand Paul really a consistent and principled liberty lover? Let’s take a look at his history in the senate:
Introduced sweeping criminal justice reform legislation (knows how to actually work with the other side).
Introduced groundbreaking legislation in the Senate that would begin to tear down the, totally failed, War on Drugs, making marijuana a schedule 2 drug (allows vital research to be done on THC and CBD, as well as reduces the penalties for possession), and allowing medical marijuana and recreational marijuana in states that legalize it.
Released a detailed tax plan that would massively reduce the corporate tax rate (ours is the highest IN THE WORLD at 35%) and the personal rate to a flat 14.5% with a family of four, making less than $50K paying nothing. (Not the “Fair Tax”, which I support, but still a “radical” plan, clearly laid out.)
Rated as “the most conservative candidate” with a, “10C” conservative record (the highest available and higher than Ted Cruz), AND is rated better than ALL the major Democratic candidates, when it comes to Civil Liberty issues.
Opposed the Iraq Invasion of 2003 (this was before he was elected to the Senate).
“He’s not perfect, nobody is. But he’s exactly what this country needs. Not another charlatan hurling vague, vitriolic rhetoric at anyone who challenges him, but a clear-minded, sober, logical problem-solver who presents common-sense solutions to systemic issues.”
I, whole-heartedly, agree. And, Rand Paul’s actions line up pretty darn clearly with his talk…
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/senator-rand-paul.jpg328605Tad MacKiehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngTad MacKie2015-09-14 17:27:322015-09-15 06:21:21What has Rand Paul done?
Every day brings America closer to the next presidential election. Every day also brings us closer to the debates in which candidates for America’s highest elected office will be questioned about their goals and visions for the future of our nation.
So many important questions that will need to be answered. Where will the moderators begin?
If the moderators are thoughtful and honest, they will begin by asking questions about that most important topic that plays a vital role in all of the other challenges and threats facing America and Americans today. That singular topic is immigration.
While it is rarely if ever discussed in the mainstream media, immigration is arguably the most impactful component of each and every one of the most important challenges and threats facing America and Americans today.
Those challenges include national security and the war on terror, public safety and crime, the economy, the survival of the middle class and unemployment. Those challenges also include public health and healthcare, education, the environment and the critical infrastructure of our towns and cities.
Immigration has been of extreme importance for a very long time but has been all but ignored until very recently. Had it not been for Donald Trump’s statements about immigration, the issue of criminal aliens and the lack of border security, it is quite likely that immigration would still be off limits in the discussions. Trump’s statements and the tragic and senseless death of Kate Steinle in San Francisco by a criminal alien who had been convicted of seven felonies and deported on 5 previous occasions, pushed immigration into the national consciousness and rattled the cages of the leaders of both political parties who had hoped that no one would raise the issue.
Additionally, the great majority of news organizations had been assiduously ignoring immigration, but has lately found it impossible to not provide coverage about immigration and the issues of “sanctuary cities” and the violence perpetrated by criminal aliens.
Trump’s emergence on the national stage — unfettered by the need to raise campaign contributions and making the decision to be his own man and speak his own mind — continues to resonate with many Americans even as politicians from both parties continue to rely on pollsters to tell them what to say and what not to say. They surround themselves with a small army of advisors and “handlers” and try to operate and speak within the confines of what my good friend and Congressional Representative Lou Barletta accurately refers to as “the box.” Not surprisingly, Trump is connecting with many Americans in a way that the other politicians are not because he operates outside the confines of that “box.” The impact this is having is clear.
Most politicians are expressing greater anger and frustration over Trump’s candor than they are over criminal aliens murdering innocent Americans. Many politicians are also more focused on Trump than they are on the administration that has created anarchy in the immigration system — a system that should serve as America’s first line and last line of defense against international terrorists and transnational criminals.
For decades politicians from both political parties have impugned hardworking Americans by claiming that “immigrants do the work Americans won’t do.” This has become the virtual mantra for both parties. Ask yourself if there are, in fact, any jobs that Americans won’t do?
Even as you read this article American workers are trudging off to work boarding commercial fishing vessels where they engage in the most dangerous job in America. They are trudging off to work in coal mines, heading for constructions sites to build towering office buildings, stores and houses. They are racing to put out dangerous fires threatening the lives and property of total strangers. Our American law enforcement officers on the local, state and federal level are chasing down dangerous armed felons, putting their lives on the line as a matter of routine.
Hardworking Americans who still embody the “can do” spirit that built our country are ready, willing and able to do dangerous, filthy and backbreaking work (and do it better and more productively than anyone else) are being insulted by politicians who were purportedly elected to represent them. What an outrageous betrayal.
Even as you read this, American soldiers, all of whom are volunteers, are engaging in violent combat in some of the most inhospitable hellish conditions imaginable. They see their fellow soldiers suffering grievous injuries or being killed before their very eyes, yet, as the appropriate term says, they continue to soldier on.
We are also being told that Americans lack the education and, apparently, the intelligence to take the high-tech STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) jobs even as Silicon Valley and many other employers fire thousands of American workers who have been working in these careers for many years — yet petition the federal government for more H-1B visas to bring in foreign workers to take these very same jobs.
Today increasing numbers of “STEM” (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) professionals are being laid off and replaced by foreign workers from India and elsewhere. The only thing “exceptional” about these foreign workers is that they will work for exceptionally low wages under exceptionally adverse conditions.
Work helps to define us. Work provides dignity, a sense of purpose, opportunities and income. Virtually every college student who attends college does so with the hope/expectation of a brighter future through a career made possible by acquiring a higher level of education.
When young Americans opt to attend colleges they put off working for years. Upon graduation from those institutions of higher learning, where they invested years of their lives studying conscientiously, they find themselves encumbered by massive debts in the form of student loans. All too often they find that they cannot get jobs in their chosen fields of study, including those who took degrees in the STEM disciplines. For these victims of the crime, their share of the “American Dream” and indeed their futures, have been stolen, their time and money wasted.
Understandably, foreign workers send as much of their earnings back to their families in their home countries whether they are illegal alien day laborers or high-tech workers who were admitted into the United States with H-1B or other such visas which enable them to legally work in the United States. That money provides an important revenue stream to those foreign families and their countries. For Mexico, for example, remittances are believed to represent the second largest source of revenue.
Last year the United States lost well over 125 billion dollars in remittances — money electronically transferred out of the United States by such foreign workers. Money also moves in covert ways as well.
Last year India was the recipient of the greatest amount of remittances any country on this planet received, more than 70 billion dollars. This money was wired home by their workers who are employed in countries around the world- although it is the United States that each year loses the greatest amount of money.
A PhD in economics is not needed to understand that as more Americans are replaced by more foreign workers who will send ever increasing amounts of money out of our economy that the U.S. economy will suffer. When middle class families drop below the poverty line as American workers lose their jobs, they lose their disposable incomes. They stop being tax-payers and become increasingly dependent on costly economic safety net programs. This jacks up our national debt and also hurts the economies of cities and states across the United States. This is completely unsustainable.
Undoubtedly the nation’s struggling economy will be important to the debates because America’s economy is linked to national security as well as not only the well-being of America but for millions of Americans. The middle class is getting hammered as family wages stagnate or even decline. Record numbers of American families now live below the poverty line.
Any politician who claims to oppose Sanctuary Cities but supports in-state tuition for illegal aliens is lying. In-state tuition for illegal aliens creates a powerful and costly magnet that incentivizes and rewards illegal immigration.
Undoubtedly the politicians who are advocates for in-state tuition for illegal aliens will insist that once educated these illegal aliens should be granted Green Cards that will enable them to compete, on an equal standing, with desperate American workers and American students who need good jobs.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/visa-2-e1438690906352.jpg360640Michael Cutlerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMichael Cutler2015-08-04 08:23:062015-08-04 08:23:06Immigration and the Presidential Debates -- The burning question on voters' minds
MERRIFIELD, Va./PRNewswire/ — Citing the critical need to heal a nation more bitterly divided politically than it has been at any time in the past 150 years, Dr. Ben Carson on May 4th in Detroit announced his candidacy for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.
“As a world-renowned neurosurgeon, Dr. Carson knows a thing or two about healing,” said John Philip Sousa IV, co-founder and chairman of The 2016 Committee, the political action committee originally formed to draft Carson into the presidential race. “I know I speak for millions of Americans in thanking Dr. Carson for entering this race and pledging to support his candidacy.”
“Dr. Carson’s candidacy represents the best and really the only opportunity we have to heal America and to bring Americans back together again under the banner of our Constitution,” Sousa added.
The Committee has been at the forefront of the movement urging Dr. Carson to run for president. Starting in August of 2013, it conducted a petition campaign that ultimately collected more than 500,000 signatures from Americans urging Dr. Carson to enter the race. The Committee operates full time offices in Iowa and New Hampshire, and chairmen are in place in nearly every state coordinating more than 30,000 volunteers nationwide. The Committee has raised more than $16 million from more than 150,000 individual donors since 2013.
“For two years, Dr. Carson has said that if people clamored for him to run for president, he would have to answer their call,” said Vernon Robinson, The 2016 Committee’s campaign director. “Well, they indeed clamored, and he has answered them. But our work is far from over. We will continue growing the massive grassroots network in pace to support Dr. Carson’s candidacy, and look ahead toward key Republican presidential straw polls and the September debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.”
“Dr. Carson’s candidacy will build on the massive grass-roots network that sprang up to encourage him to get into the race in the first place,” Robinson said. “He’s in it to win it, and we’re with him all the way.”
Dr. Carson is consistently among likely Republican voters’ top picks for the nomination. In one recent CNN survey, Dr. Carson placed second behind Mitt Romney but ahead of other likely contenders including formerFlorida Gov. Jeb Bush and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Dr. Carson finished an impressive second place in the 2014 Bloomberg/Des Moines Register presidential poll of likely caucus-goers, and scored an overwhelming victory in the Polk County Republican Dinner in Des Moines in August. He also won the Linn County, Iowa, midterm caucus straw poll in January 2014.
The now-retired Dr. Carson chose Detroit for his announcement because that’s where he grew up and because he wanted to use the bankrupt city as a metaphor for President Obama’s failed economic policies. He says his campaign will speak out against Mr. Obama’s radical left-wing agenda, because he loves his country and wants to save it.
About The 2016 Committee
The 2016 Committee, formed expressly to draft Dr. Carson into the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, was founded in August 2013. Going forward, it will work to raise awareness of Dr. Carson’s qualifications, and will engage grass-roots conservative activists on behalf of his candidacy to provide the margin of victory for Ben Carson. For more information, visit www.2016committee.org or connect on Twitter@DraftRunBenRun or Facebook.com/RunBenRun.org.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/140713-Ben-Carson-ftr-e1443173411664.jpg398388Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2015-05-05 08:44:352015-05-05 08:44:35Dr. Ben Carson Answers the Clamoring of Millions of Americans to Run for President
After making his 2016 presidential campaign official Monday morning, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) made a speech to supporters in Miami on April 13th, 2015, at 5:30 p.m. EST.
“The Republican Party, for the first time in a long time, has a chance in this election to be the party of the future,” Rubio told donors in a preview of his speech. “Just yesterday, we heard from a leader from yesterday who wants to take us back to yesterday, but I feel that this country has always been about tomorrow.”
Foreign policy is taking center stage in both the Republican and Democratic primaries. Marco Rubio is announcing his run for the Republican presidential nomination. His theme is “A New American Century”.
To the extent primary voters question the wisdom of putting forward another first-term U.S. senator for president, Rubio fans counter not only with his rise to the speakership of the Florida legislature but his engagement with key foreign policy questions in the Senate.
Last May, delivering the Republican address that counters President Obama’s weekly message on radio and online, Rubio boiled down his post-9/11 thinking on the subject:
Today, foreign policy is an important part of our domestic policy. And our economic well-being is deeply dependent on our national security. The problem is that President Obama doesn’t seem to understand this. Instead of shaping world events, he has often simply reacted to them. And instead of a foreign policy based on strategy, his foreign policy is based on politics.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/rubio-heritage-foundation.png332640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2015-04-13 09:09:252015-04-13 09:18:21Marco Rubio: A New American Century [VIDEO]
But as Sept. 5 primary nears, Tea Party activists are fighting back! How MassResistance made the difference . . .
Most people assume that the major threat to getting conservatives elected to high office is the liberal Democratic machine. In recent years there’s been another major front in that war: The Republican Party establishment –both state and national. This is fueled by millions of dollars from “progressive Republican” businessmen. And, sadly, it includes many sellout pro-family groups and politicians. [All photos by MassResistance except where noted.]
Fisher at the GOP convention:”I am a full-platform no-excuses-necessary loyal and proud conservative Republican … [Around the country] conservative solutions are the cure for liberal failures … The time has come to tear down that big liberal tent.”
This kind of talk drives the GOP establishment crazy!
But we’ve never seen anything like the Massachusetts Republican Party’s outrageous (and we believe, criminal) efforts to subvert pro-family/Tea Party candidate Mark Fisher’s campaign for governor, which we’ve detailed below.
During Fisher’s speech, former Mass. Governor Bill Weld (sitting, at right), a RINO who voted for Barack Obama, looks up at Mark Fisher and you can tell he’s not happy!
A disturbing national trend explodes in Massachusetts
Ever since the days of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, there’s been a tension between the GOP establishment — who felt they could avoid the Left’s hostile attacke by appeasing them on most “hot-button” issues — and the conservative base who vote on principle. In recent years, this has led to many high-profile battles with Tea Party backed candidates in Republican primaries, which has angered the establishment considerably.
So now we’re seeing the next step: The aggressive purging of conservative candidates for high office before they can get a foothold.
Here in Massachusetts this has turned the State Republican Party into an overtly hostile anti-family institution devoid of political principles that long-time activists no longer recognize. This year Party elites were particularly determined to avoid a primary battle for Governor that could endanger their annointed “moderate” candidate, Charlie Baker.
Fisher’s candidacy for Governor attracts a torrent of GOP hostility
The appearance of Mark Fisher in the Massachusetts governor’s race stymied the Republican establishment. He is not only a fairly solid conservative and wealthy enough to get his campaign off the ground, but he is bright and articulate and can hold his own in any debate. For example, in several head-to-head debates with GOP rival, Charlie Baker, does a much better job in our opinion.
From the very beginning of his campaign, Fisher became Public Enemy #1 to the Republican State Committee and their allies. Their goal was to keep him from being able to run in the primary. And they almost succeeded.
Below is a list of the efforts by the GOP and “pro-family” establishment in Massachusetts over the last year to keep conservative Mark Fisher from being able to run for Governor against the RINO Charlie Baker in the Republican primary. Even most Republicans aren’t aware what’s been going on. That’s why we’re publishing this.
Don’t be surprised if you see these things happen in other states:
A. Prior to the State convention . . .
1. Hostility at his candidacy by “pro-family” Republicans. Late last year when Fisher announced his candidacy, and it became known that he was a pro-family conservative with the means to carry on a serious candidacy, the establishment (including so-called “pro-family” people) began hounding him not to run so Baker would not have a “conservative” challenger. According to newspaper reports this included Karyn Polito (currently running for Lt. Governor), State Rep. Ryan Fattman, and GOP National Committeewoman Chanel Prunier, who also leads the Coalition for Marriage and Family. We know of many other prominent GOP politicians and pro-family “leaders” who also approached Fisher.
2. Turned down by GOP sign company. According to reports, in February Fisher was turned down by a company that regularly makes campaign signs for the GOP because the company was warned not to do business with Fisher or risk losing other GOP sign business.
B. At the March 22 GOP State Convention . . .
The Mass. GOP state convention filled Agganis Arena at Boston University.
To get on the state ballot, a candidate needed 15% of the delegates to vote for him at the state GOP convention on March 22, 2014. The Mass. GOP made an enormous effort to keep Fisher from getting that amount.
3. Outrageous fee to speak at GOP convention. In order to speak at the GOP State Convention, the Mass GOP raised the “entry fee” for gubernatorial candidates to $25,000, to deter Fisher. Candidates for other statewide offices were charged a fraction of that to speak. Fisher paid it.
4. State Committee emails telling delegates to vote for Baker. The day before the Convention, delegates received “official” looking emails from their state committee representatives telling them that to vote for Charlie Baker – and thus not have a primary by keeping Fisher off the ballot — would be the best thing for the Party.
This “official” email to delegates from their state committeewoman started off with “official” info, but then told them that voting for Baker would be best for the Party.Read it here.
5. The waiting room from hell. State-wide candidates were given nice rooms to prepare for their convention speeches. Mark and his team were given a smelly locker room with benches surrounded by toilets and shower stalls.
Going into the convention Fisher people expected to get 30%. Given that GOP activists who become delegates and actually go to the convention are generally fairly conservative, and seeing who they were on the day of the convention, it was generally believed that Fisher would get at least 30% of the vote. But no one was prepared for the high-pressure campaign that took place that day.
6. Huge pressure on delegates to vote for Baker. Throughout the day, a small army of State Party officials, State Committeemen, GOP State Reps, Town Party Chairmen, GOP candidates for office, and others put on a coordinated effort to strong-arm and harangue delegates not to vote for Fisher –- to either vote for Baker or vote “blank.” We heard about all kinds of interesting threats, mostly involving loss of GOP financial support and/or access to GOP facilities.
On the giant screen GOP national committeewoman Chanel Prunier exhorts the delegates to vote for Charlie Baker.
This delegate told us that during the convention he was pressured by his state committeeman, state committeewoman, State Rep. and even a state pro-family activist to vote for Baker.But he held out and voted for Fisher!
7. GOP won’t release video of Fisher’s convention speech. When his turn came at the convention, Fisher gave a very good speech. The GOP had set up a sophisticated video recording system in the auditorium. But later when Fisher asked for a copy of his speech, the Mass GOP refused to give it to him. Luckily, MassResistance also made a video of his speech, which we’ve allowed his website to use.
VIDEO: Fisher’s convention speech was one of the best we’ve ever seen. The GOP wouldn’t release their video of it, so we let him have OURS!
8. Delegations’ votes are publicly announced, but result is ignored.The vote tally was very public. A GOP official at the podium called out to each of the 40 delegations for their results. Each delegation, using a portable microphone from their area in the auditorium, announced their totals for Baker, Fisher, and “blanks” from their tally sheets which had the names of the delegates and how they voted. The whole thing took about 20 minutes. But at the end, the grand totals were not announced.
9. Convention halts while “re-counting” takes place. The convention immediately stopped and a group of party officials huddled around some tables in front of the stage. At first was not clear what they were doing. Finally, we were told that a “re-counting” of sorts was taking place. This went on for at least half an hour or more.
Right after the public vote. Party officials gathered around a table at the front of the hall for a “re-count.”
10. Baker is declared winner, but actual vote totals still not announced. A few minutes later, Baker was declared the “winner. ” And with a rain of balloons and confetti, and he came up and gave a speech. But what percentage did Baker get? What percentage did Fisher get? It was not announced – only that Baker won.
Even though no vote totals were announced, Charlie Baker was hailed as the “winner” with a sea of confetti. Here Baker (center) is being congratulated by Bill Weld (right).
11. “Re-counting” continues, and “results” finally announced. After Baker’s speech, party officials moved to tables in a back room area and continued their mysterious “re-counting.” After about another two hours, it was announced that Fisher had only received 14.765% of the votes, just missing the 15% requirement. Fisher’s people were not allowed to examine the tally sheets for themselves, however.
The “re-count” group then convened to a back room out of sight. Long after the convention had been gaveled to a close, people continued waiting for the results of the “re-count.”
C. After the convention . . .
12. Mass GOP announces Fisher will not be the ballot. The day after the convention, the Mass GOP announced to the press that Mark Fisher had not received the 15% requirement, and therefore would not be on the ballot. The GOP stood by its “re-count.”
13. Tally sheets still kept hidden. The Mass GOP continued to refuse to let anyone see the individual delegate vote tally sheets, which apparently added up to the GOP’s new official vote count. Several delegates expressed concern that their votes had been tampered with, miscounted, or that they were “assigned” votes when they hadn’t voted at all.
14. MassResistance video of public vote during convention shows Fisher got his 15%! During the convention, while the delegation votes were being publicly announced, no one had thought to write them down and add them up. But MassResistance videoed the entire process.When we played the video and counted the votes that were announced, we found that Mark Fisher GOT just over 15%, even if you include blank votes. We posted the video and allowed the Fisher campaign to use it, and it was reported in the Boston media. This brought up an additional question: Why were “blank” votes counted in the total, when it was apparently against the rules?
VIDEO: MassResistance video of the roll call vote at the GOP convention revealed that Fisher GOT his 15%! Thus, Fisher’s campaign got new life.
15 Fisher takes the Mass GOP to court. Why did the public vote count show that Fisher got his 15% but the mysterious “recount” by the GOP showed he didn’t? Why the difference? Obviously, an examination of the tally sheets –- which should have had every delegate’s name and how he voted — would reveal that. But the Mass GOP refused to release them, and they would not give a reason. So the Fisher campaign filed a lawsuitagainst theMass GOP in Suffolk Superior Court in Boston to examine the tally sheets and get on the ballot.
17. Court case temporarily crippled Fisher candidacy. Although Fisher won the case, it left his campaign in terrible shape. It cost Fisher’s campaign approximately $100,000 in legal fees. But also, during that 3-month period he was considered “not on the ballot,” so he could not easily raise money, nor could he attract enough volunteers to help get his required 10,000 signatures which were also needed to get on the ballot, so he had to pay professional signature gatherers. And during that time he wasn’t included in candidate forums, etc. so he lost a lot of public visibility. It was a devastating blow that almost sunk him.
18. Fisher campaign not allowed to use Mass GOP campaign resources. The Mass GOP has set up an expensive and elaborate “MassVictory” operation with offices, phone banks, etc. around the state. All GOP candidates are allowed to use those facilities -– except Fisher. They won’t let his campaign use them. It’s outrageous.
19. Fisher not listed on Mass GOP website. The State Party website currently has names and photos of all the statewide candidates on the ballot – except Fisher. The sheer hatred of Fisher by the party establishment takes them to these absurd lengths.
20. Sleazy GOP State Committee votes to keep tally sheets secret.Even after the court case subsided, the Mass GOP executives had even refused to let the 80-member elected State Committee see the tally sheets! So in July, a group of conservative State Committee members petitioned the Chairman to call a meeting so the Committee could vote to release them. The Chairman called the meeting, but it was closed to the public and held in secret. In the closed meeting, the majority of the State Committee voted not to release the tally sheets to anyone, not even to themselves! (What possible reason would there be to keep them secret . . . unless there was some criminal wrongdoing that took place?)
21. Mass GOP lavishly funding Baker, Fisher gets nothing. The Mass GOP is using its resources to raise enormous funds for the Baker campaign, but nothing for the Fisher campaign. This includes, according to the Boston Globe,paying a consulting firm to fundraise for Baker. In fact, we have been told that Republican donors are being told NOT to donate to the Fisher campaign. This has had a disastrous effect on Fisher’s fundraising capabilities.
22. Alleged threats to media by Mass GOP. A radio talk show host told us that members of the media have been threatened by GOP officials if they cover Mark Fisher to any extent, they will be persona non grata by the rest of the GOP during this election cycle.
By far the most troubling aspect of this was how easily virtually every “pro-family” GOP politician sold his soul and fell into line for Baker and against Fisher when pressured by the establishment.
We don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that the Mass GOP has become a dishonest, unprincipled cesspool that good people should stay away from — and only donate money to individual candidates.
And then there’s the Frank Addivinola episode
Mark Fisher wasn’t the only pro-family candidate squashed at the convention. Frank Addivinola, a businessman and college professor, was a U.S. Senate candidate. But like Mark Fisher, he was an unabashed pro-family advocate.
Although his campaign had a booth at the convention, through a still unresolved series of events he was not given a chance to speak.
U.S. Senate Candidate Frank Dddivinola (left) at his table at the Mass. GOP convention.
But Addivinola was VERY popular among conservatives across the state and would have easily gotten his 15%. So the Mass GOP didn’t take any chances. When it came time for the nomination of candidates, the Chairman allowed the establishment candidate, Brian Herr, to be nominated, then immediately closed the nominations! So no one could even nominate Addivinola.
Even though Addivinola’s banner (for which he paid them plenty!) was right next to the podium, they pretended that his candidacy didn’t exist.
It was still possible for Addivinola to get on the ballot via signatures, since he was running for a federal office. But once the Party officially considered him a non-candidate and denied him all support, his campaign never recovered from that. Thus, Herr is now unopposed in the primary.
Tea Party groups & others rallying statewide for Fisher as Sept. 9 primary nears
Fisher’s campaign is making a surge!
None of the above adversities have stopped the Fisher campaign or its supporters statewide. Fisher continues to appear everywhere, every day, and has impressed people wherever he goes. This has only ignited Fisher’s people even more.
In mid-August a group of Tea Parties, conservative leaders, and non-establishment pro-family groups, began a furious grassroots push to energize the GOP conservative base of voters to go to the polls on Sept. 5 and vote for Fisher. Will this become another David Brat over Eric Cantor? No one knows. But the energy is there!
This is a favorable primary race because Democrats and independents will be drawn to the highly contested Democratic primary, and many mainstream Republican voters will likely think Baker is a shoo-in and not bother to go to the polls. Even Jeff Jacoby, the Boston Globe’s (relatively) conservative columnist, who’s a registered Independent, said he’s voting in the Democratic primary — because that’s “where the action is.”
This is a great opportunity for a possble pro-family upset – in a RINO state!If you are a registered voter in Massachusetts, you know what to do on Sept. 9.We’ll see if Massachusetts can do it!
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/mark-fisher-mass-governor-candidate-e1409656354357.jpg360640MassResistancehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMassResistance2014-09-02 07:12:442014-09-03 21:07:00Massachusetts: How the GOP tried to destroy Mark Fisher, conservative candidate for Governor
Kevin Wade, Republican primary candidate for the U.S. Senate in Delaware.
With the primary races over and growing attention at the local, state and national levels will be on Tuesday, November 4, 2014. The real battle nationally is in the U.S. Senate. Millions will be poured into races to retain or obtain control of that body.
However, there is one key Republican U.S. Senate primary remaining – in Delaware.
On September 9th, 2014 the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate will be held in “The First State.” This race will take on greater interest as the Delaware primary approaches. Kevin Wade, a self-made business man, believes he can take and put the Delaware U.S. Senate seat solidly in the “R” column.
Historically the Delaware U.S. Senate seat is won with approximately 150,000 total votes. The race in November will likely hinge on about 8,000 voters changing their voting pattern on the General Election Day. It is projected that the Republican turnout will be 10% higher and 10% lower for the Democrats. That leaves 8,000 voters to be convinced to swing this U.S. Senate Republican on November 4th.
This is the seat formerly held by now Vice President Joe Biden. That alone must have Delaware Republicans energized.
According to Wade, “It is all in reach. I don’t understand the fascination with ‘big state’ races at the national level. My vote in the U.S. Senate would count as much as California’s U.S. Senator. The yield on a donor dollar and volunteer hour is so much higher in this small voting universe in Delaware.”
Kevin Wade on the Two Americas:
Recently Wade was at the Gaza Frontier with Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers. Wade notes, “No civilian was closer. I am a trusted friend and have trusted friends there. Because of this trust, senior IDF officers closed their eyes to my presence in the forward area. The soldiers I met were returning from house-to-house fighting inside Gaza. Others were going across the fence line to enter combat. It was and remains a tough fight. To be clear I was not in combat; just nearby. One explosion was so close I felt the blast wave and my ears rang.”
“The soldiers asked me to break bread with them at their late night mess. Another night I was invited to join their prayer circle for the traditional Soldiers Prayer before they entered combat. I went to Israel, when under attack by Hamas rockets, to form a personal impression. On my last night in Israel I was invited to be a guest on I24 TV, Israel’s “CNN” for a live worldwide broadcast about the conditions there. Thirty minutes later I was face down in a roadside ditch due to another rocket attack. I saw the two rockets rise up with a fiery tail from a field to my right,” recalls Wade.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Delaware-flag.png426640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2014-08-27 10:13:452014-08-27 11:21:59Will Republicans pick up a U.S. Senate Seat in Delaware? Kevin Wade thinks so!
Heritage Alliance has graded all the candidates with opposition in the Republican primary in Florida. Below are the grades for those contested primary races. At the bottom of the list are the criteria for the Heritage Alliances’ grades.
U.S. Senator – Republican
Long, Deon (R) Grade: C
Mack, Connie (R) Grade: B
McCalister, Michael (R) Grade: B
Stuart, Marielena (R) Grade: B
Weldon, Dave (R) Grade: A+
U.S. Rep., Dist. 3 – Republican
Jett, James (R) Grade: B
Oelrich, Steve (R) Grade: A
Stearns, Cliff (R) Grade: B+
Yoho, Theodore (R) Grade: B
U.S. Rep., Dist. 4 – Republican
Black, Bob (R) Grade: C
Crenshaw, Ander (R) Grade: B
Pueschel, Deborah (R) Grade: C
U.S. Rep., Dist. 6 – Republican
Clark, Richard (R) Grade: C
Costello, Fredrick W. “Fred” (R) Grade: A+
DeSantis, Ronald D. “Ron” (R) Grade: B
Kogut, William (R) Grade: D
Miller, Craig (R) Grade: A
Pueschel, Alec (R) Grade: B
Slough, Bev (R) Grade: B
U.S. Rep., Dist. 7 – Republican
Adams, Sandy (R) Grade: A+
Mica, John (R) Grade: C
U.S. Rep., Dist. 9 – Republican
Long, Todd (R) Grade: C
Melendez, Julius (R) Grade: C
Oxner, Mark (R) Grade: B
Quinones, John (R) Grade: D
U.S. Rep., Dist. 13 – Republican
Ayres, Darren (R) Grade: B
Vance, Madeline (R) Grade: B
Young, C.W. Bill (R) Grade: B
U.S. Rep., Dist. 14 – Republican
Adams Jr., Eddie (R) Grade: D
Otero, Evelio (R) Grade: C
U.S. Rep., Dist. 17 – Republican
Arnold, Joe (R) Grade: C
Rooney, Tom (R) Grade: B
U.S. Rep., Dist. 18 – Republican
Crowder, Robert L. “Bob” (R) Grade: D
West, Allen (R) Grade: B+
U.S. Rep., Dist. 19 – Republican
Aubuchon, Gary (R) Grade: B
Davidow, Joseph (R) Grade: C
Donalds, Byron (R) Grade: B
Goss, Chauncey (R) Grade: C
Kreegel, Paige (R) Grade: B
Radel, Trey (R) Grade: C
U.S. Rep., Dist. 23 – Republican
Bresso, Gineen (R) Grade: D
DeFario, Osvaldo (Ozzie) (R) Grade: C
Garcia, Juan Eliel (R) Grade: C
Harrington, Karen (R) Grade: B
Kaufman, Joe (R) Grade: B
Panelists were selected after a Leadership Survey and a check of references that demonstrated conservative credentials and belief in limited constitutional government, free enterprise, strong national defense, and traditional Judeo-Christian values, such as the sanctity of life and marriage. Panelists include men and women from all walks of life who are committed to electing conservatives to public office.
After evaluating the data, panelists assigned a grade indicating what kind of voting record that candidate, if elected, would likely receive from a multi-issue conservative organization that grades on economic and social issues. Unless a candidate already has a legislative voting record, this is purely subjective. That is why the source data is provided so voters can more easily make their own evaluation.
A = 90% B = 80% C = 70% D = 60% F = below 60% I = Insufficient information available for evaluation
A low grade does not mean panelists necessarily considered the candidate to be liberal. Rather, it may mean sufficient information was not available from public sources or from the candidate to give panelists the confidence that the candidate would govern conservatively if elected. Sources of information considered the most important measure of conservative principles in governance are listed in descending order:
Legislative voting records if the candidate has recently held office
Financial contributions by the candidate to legislators with voting records
Record vote ratings for legislators to whom donors to the candidate have also contributed
Endorsements by conservative and liberal groups
Candidate Survey – less important because it represents promises rather than demonstrated action. However, no candidate can receive an A without answering the survey.