Bitter – Page 121 – Shall Not Be Questioned

The Races We’re Watching

As Sebastian mentioned earlier, we’re out working polls right now. He’s in the northern part of the county helping out, and I’m at a poll near our home working for our Congressional candidate. I’ll try to be in and out today if there are any break times. Check in on Twitter to @bitterb for my observations, and maybe for @SebastianSH if anything goes on up near him.

But, for those of you not following along that closely, here’s what’s at stake and why we give a damn:

Governor – We can pick up the battle for Castle Doctrine again next year, and if we do, we’ve got one candidate in favor & one candidate flat out opposed to any expansion of the right to defend your life in and outside of your home. Â Pretty damn extreme if you ask me.
State House – The Democrats currently lead the House 104-99. Â The Speaker & Majority Leader have been Second Amendment allies, but the committees have been the source of many problems and those are led by many anti-gun Democrats. Â Add in the big unknown of who will lead the House when the Speaker retires and the Majority Leader in jeopardy, and it’s a huge risk for gun owners. Â Oh yeah, and redistricting. Â We’re slated to lose a congressional seat, and the House and Senate will re-draw all of the districts in the state. Â Big freakin’ deal.
US Senate – HelloÂ filibuster. Â Hello Supreme Court nominees. Â Hello pretentious, annoying as shit, I know better than you liberal. Â Yeah, there’s a lot on the line in this race. Â Really. Â I won’t every acknowledge the Senator if we lose this one.
Congress – It’s a chance to help really end Nancy Pelosi’s career in leadership. Â It’s also a chance to put a stake in the political heart of one of her favored minions.

So, here are the candidates and why their races matter – endorsees in red:

Governor: Tom Corbett vs. Dan Onorato – We’re not really concerned about this race. Â Depending on who you ask, Onorato is down 10-15 points at this stage in the game. Â Not even President Clinton can turn out a large crowd to a rally for him. Â When a poll had him down only 7 points, he claimed that he had momentum on his side. Â Sure, that’s what we call it.

State House: If we can flip 3 seats, we can change up the leadership & committee chairs. It’s not a guarantee for change we need, but it’s a safer bet than leaving it in current hands. So, here are the main races we’re watching:

Frank Farry vs. John Toth (142) – It’s our local race. Â One candidate is a very angry-looking man and the other is a hot firefighter. Â Okay, it’s about more than that, but that does matter when it comes to the campaign mailers. :) Â Our guy is A rated, and he’s made it very clear that we know he’s willing to listen to gun owners. Â The other one is making some bizarre claims (“I’m an independent! I just happened to have been head of a political party, but I promise I don’t really care about them that much!”) and only got a C- on the NRA questionnaire. Â Holding this seat is really just keeping the status quo.
Rob Ciervo vs. Steve Santa-ohhellIcan’tspellhislongname (31) – This is a nearly local race, and one we’ve been volunteering for lately. Â This will be one seat toward flipping the House, and an important one to flip for gun owners. Â There’s a story to tell about this race and how we can prove that you really make a difference, but we’ll wait to see if we were completely successful before telling it. Â Also, Ciervo is actually better looking than his photos, and I’m all for more attractive men on PCN when I need to tune in for House votes.
Marguerite Quinn vs. Kathy McQuarrie (143) – Rep. Quinn stood by us on all the votes this year, and she worked hard to raise her grade for sportsmen in area. For that, she deserves our support. This will again be about maintaing the seats we need, but she’s a good representative to have in office. We don’t really know if this is a serious race or not since it’s hard to judge with the district being pretty far out of our normal travel area, but it’s not one we can afford to risk.
Todd Stephens vs. Rick Taylor (151) – This is another race that could flip control of the House. Â Stephens has the NRA endorsement, and Taylor is a D rated incumbent. Â This would be seat number 2 of 3 we need to flip. Â That’s not too shabby considering these are only races in Southeast Pennsylvania. Â If we pick up any others around the state, we’re golden. Â To make things even more exciting, this is a race with a former incumbent running, and he only lost in 2008 by about 400 votes.

State Senate: Chuck McIllhinney vs. Cynthia Philo (10) – Sadly, this is the only Senate race in Bucks County with an NRA endorsed candidate. Â :( But, he’s with us on everything, and he even invests in targets that he donates to the local ranges. Â Is is a ploy for name recognition? Â Of course, but it’s still a great courtesy that benefits our community. Â Couple that with the votes, and I’m a big fan. Â The Senate isn’t in play, but Sen. McIllhinney is worth recognizing.

Congress: We have the most number of competitive Congressional races in the country. We’re not watching them all as closely, but here are some highlights:

Mike Fitzpatrick vs. Patrick Pelosi Murphy (PA-8) – Murphy tried to pretend he was pro-gun, but he has signed onto gun bans, taken money from the Brady Campaign, and even refused to take an individual view of the Second Amendment in the Heller case. We need to send him home. (Actually, he probably won’t return to the district. He’s been a very good fundraiser for bringing in money outside of the district, so I assume he’ll relocate to DC if he loses & become part of the professional political class.)
Mike Kelly vs. Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-3) – She’s anti-gun & much farther left than her district. Â In a few polls, not many people seemed to know who he was, but they really hated her. Â This could be a fun one. Â Break out the popcorn.
Jason Altmire vs. Keith Rothfus (PA-4) – Go Jason. Â Go Jason. Â Go Jason. Â I like this pro-gun Democrat. Â He’s been good on other issues, too. Â But, obviously, the priority is the gun issue. Â He’s the kind of Democrat I really want to come through this election. Â We need voices like his leading his party in the right direction on civil rights.
Pat Meehan vs. Bryan Lentz (PA-7) – You want sleazy politician vibe? Just hand out around Bryan Lentz. This guy seriously makes me uncomfortable in person. He even has the slicked back hair to complete the look. Pat Meehan has the NRA support, and it’s really important that NRA members turn out for him in this race. Lentz is trying to show that an anti-gun leader can be elected from this state outside of Philadelphia’s proper city limits. We need to prove him wrong if we don’t want to hand the other side a literal and emotional victory.
Lou Barletta vs. Paul Kanjorski (PA-11) – NRA is backing Kanjorski as a Democrat with solid Second Amendment credentials. Â But, he’s likely to lose this time around. Â He barely won against Barletta in 2008, even when Obama took the district with surprising numbers. Â We’re pretty peeved at Kanjo for his health care vote & the like, but we understand why NRA is sticking with their policy in this race. The numbers will be the interesting story in this campaign.

US Senate: Pat Toomey vs. Joe Sestak – Contrary to Sebastian’s dog issues, we’re backing Toomey based on the issues. I promise. Also, someday we will own a small dog. I promise. :)

What races are you guys watching at home? Â Feel free to discuss while we’re out shaking babies & kissing hands.

Attack Ads

I have a huge pet peeve: People who complain about attack ads.

First, they work. I hate it, but they do work. It sucks, and it makes for a miserable campaign season. But, if they didn’t work, they wouldn’t be the fine American tradition that they are today.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI[/youtube]

Voting While Armed

A few days ago, we saw the beginning of a controversy brewing in Pennsylvania when it comes to the election – and not just the voter fraud accusations already flying. Rep. Bryan Cutler posted a link to the debate in his area when Lancaster County commissioners considered a ban on firearms in polling places. According to local news, is was either a directive or “suggestion” from the state on how towns can ban guns:

Stehman said she made the recommendation to the commissioners at the direction of the Pennsylvania Department of State.

The good news for the folks in Lancaster County is that a) you have a gun owning lawmaker who is looking into why the Department of State is trying to push an illegal resolution in all of the counties, and b) the commissioners recognized that the ban would be a legal and logistical nightmare and opted to follow the law.

But it’s a fair question to ask why someone at the Department of State would ask all 67 counties to break state law and pass these bans on possession?

[The directive/”suggestion” from the Department of State] then lists several sections of the Pennsylvania Elections Code that could be cited to justify such resolutions.

But [Commissioner Craig] Lehman said state and federal law are pretty clear that counties can’t legislate gun possession.

“I would hope the Department of State would have provided the legal justification for its direction, but it clearly doesn’t address the Uniform Firearms Act at all,” he said.

Once contacted by Rep. Cutler, the Department of State appears to have discovered the Uniform Firearms Act and fully agreed that local bans on lawful carry in polling places is completely illegal – even though they tried to push all the counties to pass those illegal bans.

NRA isn’t taking any chances and warned its members here to contact their local county offices to demand they say no to gun bans. I’d still like to know who exactly was responsible for the directive/”suggestion” because it seems like a very targeted group to keep away from the polls in a year that will no likely help the currently administration & House leaders.

UPDATE: Good news via Rep. Cutler:

Victory in the gun in polling places debate. Dept of State sent a clarifying memo verifying that counties are preempted from regulating guns. … However, note if polling places are in a area that is already regulated such as a courthouse or school that regulation must be followed.

I’m still not happy that the Department of State felt it could send an instruction packet on how to ban guns to the counties. I’d call for a little accountability since they spent serious time (looking through all of the state laws – except the one that actually matters) and some money on this fiasco. But, at least it is resolved. I vote at a school, but I think I’ll be standing at the polls at a different location, so this does impact my right to carry. Especially since Sebastian will be in another area working for a different candidate.

At What Point Do You Just Walk Away?

I know I asked this just a couple of weeks ago, but why on earth is Democratic gubernatorial candidate Dan Onorato even trying at this point? It really just makes him look a little more pathetic that he’s trying so hard and actually slipping in the polls. Two polls released late last night & today put him down 14 and 15 points, respectively. The money race hasn’t changed much, either. Corbett is outraising & outspending him, and still has more left in the bank.

If we didn’t have to worry about how tight the Senate race between Toomey & Sestak has been lately, then it would just be comedy gold. Unfortunately, we gun owners can’t take any votes for granted this year. And, as much as I’m gloating about Onorato’s failing campaign, there’s still nearly a week left, and voters are fickle and pissy this year. There are still too many races around Pennsylvania and the rest of the country that are too close to call.

Of course, I would argue that Corbett’s campaign could still use some help. There’s a good chance that these double digit leads won’t stay that large until Election Day. But, because Onorato has embraced a strategy of pushing gun control as a key component of his campaign, we need his campaign to fail miserably. We need him to lose and lose big. We need to remind Ed Rendell & his buddie in Philadelphia that we still outvote them, and gun control still pisses us off.

Running From His Record

You want to know what’s awesome? Waking up on Sunday morning to find this kind of endorsement in the local paper:

[Patrick] Murphy enjoys a significant advantage over Fitzpatrick in financial resources, and he’s utilized his war chest to denigrate his opponent at every turn. Rather than stand on his own record since January 2007, Murphy’s strategy has been to berate Fitzpatrick for his performance in Congress in 2005-06 during President Bush’s second term. He’s even bashed Fitzpatrick for his service as a county commissioner, an office he vacated in 2004.

In one very telling episode, Murphy spent virtually his entire endorsement interview with our editorial board taking shot after shot at the challenger while answering none of our questions. It was, in a word, a “terrible” performance.

And really, it gets no better than their succinct summary of what’s on the line in this race – surely not something that will help Patrick Murphy’s chances:

When you get beyond the nasty rhetoric and innuendo, what you have is this: Murphy, a loyal soldier in Barack Obama’s Democratic army who has voted consistently to advance the president and his party’s agenda, versus Fitzpatrick, who believes that agenda is wrong for America and promises to vote to undo a lot of it.

The choice for voters should be simple: If you agree with what the Democrats have done and plan to do, then there’s no stronger advocate in Congress than Patrick Murphy. On the other hand, if you don’t like what Congress is doing, then Fitzpatrick is your guy.

Well that certainly explains why he’s avoiding his own record. As Sebastian said when I read him that piece today, there’s no way that Murphy will try to run on his record because as soon as people figure out he’s not really the moderate he promised, they’ll vote him out. It certainly looks like that might happen.

Oh, and you want to know their big complaint against Mike Fitzpatrick’s campaign?

Fitzpatrick hasn’t been a choir boy in all this, either. While several of his mailed campaign pieces feature a smiling Mike on one side, the other side shows unflattering pictures of Murphy as if he were some sort of demon.

Yes, we have an incumbent who is too scared of voters to actually talk about any of the policies he has supported that have kept us in a state of economic uncertainty and reduces hiring, and the other guy uses some less than flattering photos. Seriously, if that’s all they’ve got, then they really need to get a life.

Asking the Right Questions

Writing a poll isn’t as easy as it sounds. One of the biggest factors in dealing with respondents is that they can lie, or they can tell you what they think you want to hear. This measure is particularly important when trying to figure out the likely voter model. So, what do you do with a poll when its entire purpose is to determine who will turn out to vote? You have to really dig down and try to ask the best questions possible.

Yesterday, SCI released a poll saying that “nine in ten sportsmen and women are ‘very’ likely to vote in the upcoming mid-term elections.” My first question was how they determined a likely voter. When I finally saw the question, I was a little skeptical. I wasn’t so eager to raise questions to go downstairs and dig out the textbooks from my polling class in college, but this morning a relevant post just happened to cross my path courtesy of Jim Geraghty. And you know how I am about stirring the pot.

The first two questions in SCI’s poll ask whether the respondent is registered and how they are registered to vote. It’s the third question they appear to use to determine a likely voter: “And how likely is it that you will vote in the upcoming November election for Congress?” The best answer – “very interested” – garnered 88% of responses, with “somewhat likely” giving another 10%. That means 98% are “likely” voters by their measure. Anytime a number is that high, it’s not believable at all. Geraghty’s link today pointed out that defining likely voters with this method of questioning is very unreliable in a year like this:

The most difficult job a pollster has is trying to figure out who the actual voters are going to be in a given election year. This is easier said than done, because we know that (a) almost all survey participants say they will vote in the midterm election and (b) historically, only about 40 percent will.

Pollsters do their best to solve this problem by screening out those who are unlikely to vote using a question or series of questions probing interest in the election and/or prior voting behavior. These techniques vary widely from pollster to pollster. Some pollsters use especially “loose” voter screens: asking only, for example, if someone is certain to vote, without probing any deeper.

For example, simply asking respondents if they are certain to vote (used by Suffolk) will sometimes let more than 90 percent of respondents through a screen. In such a situation, nearly half of the respondents who are counted will not actually vote.

The article does note that even when you use tighter screens, you’ll still get people through who won’t actually vote. No poll is perfect, but I do believe it’s worth it to at least try and weed out some of those folks who don’t participate just to get a more accurate picture.

To SCI’s credit, their pollster did try to measure enthusiasm. It was very high, but then again, the survey response was pretty tilted toward Republicans which would likely reflect the higher-than-normal interest in the elections. But, their measure of enthusiasm should be a sign that the 98% number is way off. Respondents were asked to rate their interest in the elections on a scale of 1 to 10, and 23% rated their interest as 5 or less. I would say that interest is almost certainly a worthy measure to consider in whether someone is likely to vote – and that brings us down to less than 80% of potential likely voters. Many polls also ask whether the person has a history of voting in recent elections, which is usually a pretty decent indicator of future behavior. Unfortunately, the SCI poll didn’t go into this background with the folks they called. The more questions you ask along these lines, the more liars you weed out.

Before anyone says I’m just getting nit picky, I think it’s important to consider why we need to go the extra mile to get the right information. Is a publicly-released poll touting 9 out of 10 of sportsmen vote more valuable than one kept internally that shows only 7 in 10 will likely vote? If all you’re after is a quick headline for the movement, a quick dose of patriotism, and maybe some numbers to casually throw in front of a politician, then it probably is better to forgo the expense of adding extra questions to the poll that would really determine your true likely voters. However, if you want the poll to be used in a way to drive turn out machines, move resources in the right direction, or formulate a plan to engage more people, it’s better to have the most accurate information. Personally, I’m more interested in results, so I’ll go with the latter option. It still shows that sportsmen vote at higher rates than the average voter, so it does us no harm. However, it also may show us how we can improve our outreach so the 9 in 10 statistic is actually reflected on Election Day.

Little People May Lose their Representative

I’ll never forget the day I walked around the corner of a House office building and nearly had a man run into my chest. Now, I’ll grant you that the man really isn’t that short, but with my height and normal work heels, it would have made things a little awkward if we actually collided. That man was Dennis Kucinich.

So, imagine my surprise when the political folks on my Twitter feed start talking about how he’s polling surprisingly close to his GOP opponent. And now, according to FatWhiteMan, we find out the opponent is pro-gun.

Sorry to the little folks out there, but I’m going to back the man who will vote for gun rights instead. But, if it makes you feel any better, you still have Barbara Boxer who is so short that she has to stand on a box to be seen behind podiums. Although, Carly Fiorna may also take care of her this year – another candidate running on a pro-Second Amendment platform. Beyond those two, I’m not sure who the next shortest Representative/Senator is or will be next year. Carly still isn’t tall, based on what I’ve read she’s only 6 inches taller than Boxer, and that would put her at 5’5″.

This also begs the question: why are the smallest people in the House & Senate the most anti-gun? It would seem they should see value in having access to tools with which to defend themselves.

Meat is Wrong

Don’t worry, I haven’t turned vegetarian & crazy animal rights activist on you. Apparently, a pop star wore a “dress” made of meat to an awards show recently, and there’s now interest by young women who want to wear one for their Halloween costumes. The folks at NJ.com sent someone with a video camera around to various butchers so people would find out just why it’s a generally bad idea to wear a dress of raw meat.

Jersey butchers warn against wearing a Lady Gaga meat dress for Halloween

They found one woman willing to go on camera admitting to trying to recreate the look, but at least she came to her senses when she realized that if she covered herself in bacon, she could end up naked by the end of the night. (Of course, the way that most women’s Halloween costumes turn out, she’ll probably end up naked by the end of the night even if she doesn’t wear bacon.) (Link stolen from Jim Braaten.)

It’s Official

The anti-gunners have officially endorsed Dan Onorato for governor in Pennsylvania. But remember, he’s not really anti-gun!

Sebastian says they would be fools not to endorse him. However, I disagree and believe that they are fools to do so. The other side has only dabbled in the endorsement game before, and this will be a huge loss to them. They won’t be able to turn out votes on the issue, and if the current polls that run near or over a double digit lead for his opponent hold true in a couple of weeks, it will just be an embarrassment for everyone who got on board.

Onorato has decided to run to the extremes on the issues in these last few days. He has officially said he would veto Castle Doctrine if elected, and he does not support any expansion of the right to defend your own life or that of your family on your own property.

Details aren’t Important

I was thoroughly confused when sometime around 7:35pm on a Sunday night, Congressional candidate Bryan Lentz posted the following Facebook update:

This morning I will be at the Crum Lynne @SEPTA station. Come shake my hand and let me know what you’re thinking.

This morning? At 7:35pm on a Sunday?

It made Sebastian think of this:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA_UfZnqBco[/youtube]

It’s also amusing because it’s the train station he used to go to college every day, and it’s a short walk from his sister’s house & the house that he grew up in.