Special Senate Election

Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=184243
Printed Date: 25 February 2026 at 2:29pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Special Senate Election

Posted By: rednekk98
Subject: Special Senate Election
Date Posted: 14 January 2010 at 6:34pm

For Ted Kennedy's replacement. I was going to sit this one out because I don't consider myself well informed on the candidates, and out of the Democratic candidates in the primary I liked Martha Coakley the most, but her ad campaign has so polluted my TV and radio with negativity I will show up and vote against her just to make her shut up. It's a purely negative campaign as far as I can tell, and she seems to be averaging 2-4 ads per break during the nightly news. It's just gotten under my skin so much I'm now willing to vote for Scott Brown, whoever he is, even if he does support taking drugs away from seniors and denying medical treatment to rape victims, or do the hitler salute to Rush Limbaugh. At least he isn't crapping up my airwaves.

Replies:

Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 14 January 2010 at 6:50pm

I find it sad that our tolerance levels for annoying ads is a bigger factor for our votes than our actual ideals.

-------------
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl

Forum Vice President

RIP T&O Forum

Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 14 January 2010 at 7:10pm

I had to admit, Brown's remark "This isn't Senator Kennedy's seat, this is the People's seat" remark was pretty awesome.

I'm curious to see how this goes, especially since the rumor being spread around is that if Brown wins the democrats will delay the validation of his appointment until AFTER the health care vote. I don't know if there's any truth to it, but it doesn't seem out of character.

-------------
?

Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 15 January 2010 at 12:21am

Interesting race. When Romney was gov and Kerry could have left Senate the Dems wanted the people to vote and not a Gov appointment to the seat. Now they have a Dem gov and are trying to put all sort of blocks in the way of the Special Election, they really want a Gov appointment option back, which would be the Dem, because they have a real potential in losing to the Rep. Came back to bite em. And if the Rep wins they will delay the validation till after the health care vote, that is a given. Real clear and open politics, the Dem Congress of dirty tricks, Chicago politics at it's finest.

-------------

Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 15 January 2010 at 7:50am

See the only thing about that that makes me wonder, is if they DO delay the validation of the position, the credibility of the party is shot in that state. Seriously. Everyone KNOWS the ramifications that this election will have on the health care vote before they go to the polls for this special election.

If Brown wins, the democrats can't be stupid enough to delay the validation, it'll be a direct thumb in the eye of the voters, and there's no way to bounce back from that the next time an election of any kind rolls around. They'd be lucky to get a democrat elected as city dog catcher.

Are they willing to sacrifice one of their bluest states in an effort to ramrod health insurance reform through the system?

Thats why I sort of think that the delaying tactic is only a rumor concocted by someone playing just as dirty as the opposition in an effort to scare independents to the other side of the table. There's no way the democratic party could be that stupid.

......right?

-------------
?

Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 15 January 2010 at 7:54am

Reb Cpl wrote:

See the only thing about that that makes me wonder, is if they DO delay the validation of the position, the credibility of the party is shot in that state. Seriously. Everyone KNOWS the ramifications that this election will have on the health care vote before they go to the polls for this special election.

If Brown wins, the democrats can't be stupid enough to delay the validation, it'll be a direct thumb in the eye of the voters, and there's no way to bounce back from that the next time an election of any kind rolls around. They'd be lucky to get a democrat elected as city dog catcher.

Are they willing to sacrifice one of their bluest states in an effort to ramrod health insurance reform through the system?

Thats why I sort of think that the delaying tactic is only a rumor concocted by someone playing just as dirty as the opposition in an effort to scare independents to the other side of the table. There's no way the democratic party could be that stupid.

......right?

This is a rational thought.

-------------

Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 15 January 2010 at 11:37am

Brown has been trying to show a moderate stance while Coakley is using pure scare tactics. Reb, considering that the last democrat to hold that senate seat left a woman to die in his car and didn't report it and was reelected for the next few decades, if brown were to win and the governor publicly skinned him alive and wore him as a hat for the rest of his time in office, and then changed the laws and appointed a democrat, the party would still control the state. Their number 1 priority is to get a national health care system that's even more expensive that the current system in this state, by whatever means necessary. The Dem. party is strong enough in this state to survive whatever backlash would come from doing such a thing, especially with all the news focused on Haiti.

Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 15 January 2010 at 12:18pm

Massachusetts doesn't like republicans. OR we just really like Kennedy's. I think it may be the latter but I haven't decided yet.

-------------
Que pasa?

Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 15 January 2010 at 2:52pm

I have to wonder if her campaigning style is back firing. I would likely not have voted at all, but the constant spewing of hate and fear on my TV, coupled with Brown's more moderate message (promising a lot of the transparency and accountability that Obama did) have me strongly supporting Brown. Coakley has done little to stand out, while Brown has had a hand in the pension reforms and many of the other anti-corruption reforms that I've applauded. Brown seems to have the credentials of a reformer, while Coakley is yet another laywer (sorry Rambs). Considering that she's lost her 15 point lead to being within the margin of error for the polls which show her behind by 4 points, mostly thanks to a random guy with the last name of Kennedy running as a 3rd party candidite. Republicans are a serious minority in this state, so if Brown wins it will be thanks to independants (like myself), I doubt he will have a radical, regressive agenda if he wants to keep the seat. Both Bill Clinton and Obama are coming out to campaign, apparently not too busy with the whole Haiti thing.

Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 15 January 2010 at 3:01pm

I do find it interesting the 'panic' the Dems feel with this election. Since most polls show the Health Care Bill as percieved as unpopular, the Dems seem intent on thier agenda at any cost. If Brown wins and games are played by the Dems on the vote for Health Care it will doom the Dem majority, as most Americans are tired of dirty politics. And the Dem claim that Rebublicans use fear are now baseless with the Coakley campaign. As representitives the Congress needs to listen to the people, not the DNC and thier agenda. I hope Brown wins, just to watch the Dem Party both in Mass ands nationally self destruct to protect thier agenda.

-------------

Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 15 January 2010 at 3:18pm

rednekk98 wrote:

Both Bill Clinton and Obama are coming out to campaign, apparently not too busy with the whole Haiti thing.

This really smacks of that desperation and panic that OS mentioned. To be biting your nails this close to the end that you need presidential intervention? Yikes.

Red raises a good point too, even if Brown wins, he'll be tied to a moderate stance if he ever wants to keep his position in the state of Mass.

That being said, with such low national support of the health insurance reform bill thats on the table, he can probably afford to oppose that, throwing the entire thing into a tailspin without worrying too much about being ousted the first chance that the voters get.

What I don't understand though, is that The people of that state, with their seemingly eternal support for Ted Kennedy and his position on health care reform, can be so willing to embrace a candidate who stands a great chance of upsetting all of that.

I guess it just goes to prove what kind of power that the independents actually have.

-------------
?

Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 15 January 2010 at 4:23pm

I saw my first ad for this today. Apparently the vote is on Tuesday. I will not vote

-------------
Que pasa?

Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 15 January 2010 at 4:24pm

jmac3 wrote:

I saw my first ad for this today. Apparently the vote is on Tuesday. I will not vote

Then please refrain from pissing and moaning if anything that results from this election ruffles you.

I'm not saying you do now, but I cannot stand people who refuse to vote but are more than willing to be a pain in the ass about it.

-------------
?

Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 15 January 2010 at 4:29pm

I don't piss and moan about anything except stupid things Deval Patrick wanted to do before because it actually enraged me.

I actually would vote in this special election but I will be in Rhode Island working from 11-5 and that is an hour and a half away from where I would need to be to vote.

-------------
Que pasa?

Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 15 January 2010 at 4:31pm

Awww, no early voting?

-------------

Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 15 January 2010 at 4:45pm

rednekk98 wrote:

Both Bill Clinton and Obama are coming out to campaign, apparently not too busy with the whole Haiti thing.

Do you expect them to be down there pulling slabs of concrete off people?

-------------

Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 15 January 2010 at 6:05pm

High Voltage wrote:

Awww, no early voting?

Don't know is there?

and Eville speaks truth. It's not like there is much more a president and FORMER president can do.

Why is Bill clinton even included in that?

-------------
Que pasa?

Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 15 January 2010 at 6:27pm

Obama is actually the afterthought since he has more things to do than worry about Haiti, but Clinton's foundation could use him fund-raising as much as possible before something else grabs the international media spotlight.

I'm waiting for nudes of Brown to get leaked sometime monday evening.

Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 15 January 2010 at 8:33pm

Reb Cpl wrote:

What I don't understand though, is that The people of that state, with their seemingly eternal support for Ted Kennedy and his position on health care reform, can be so willing to embrace a candidate who stands a great chance of upsetting all of that. I guess it just goes to prove what kind of power that the independents actually have.

I think the eternal support of Ted Kennedy had much, if anything, to do with his stance on the issues. The statistics show us that people are more apt to vote for an incumbent unless they really really screw up. Given the fact that Teddy never really screwed the pooch politically anymore than any other Kennedy did (yes, if you're a Kennedy, you can kill people and get away with it) so people probably voted for him out of habit. It was most likely along the lines of "well, I KNOW that he hasn't screwed me over, but this new guy might...." That's the exact reason that Byrd and Rockefeller have had such death-grips on the WV Senator seats. They've been there so long, most people can't even remember a time when they weren't in those seats. Now that Ted's seat is open and he won't be filling it and can't endorse a successor (I hope) then people will actually look at the stances of those vying for the seat. That means that it's anybody's game.

-------------
<Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>

Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 15 January 2010 at 9:07pm

tallen702 wrote:

I suppose you're right, blindly following a candidate regardless of issue isn't exactly something new to politics.

-------------
?

Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 16 January 2010 at 10:30pm

14 phone calls today, both campaigns, and pollsters combined. The majority of robo-calls were from Coakley, Brown is actively recruiting people to make personal calls. As soon as you hang up the phone often rings again. Now I know how Iowans feel during the primaries. I'm glad MA matters for once, but holy hell....

Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 16 January 2010 at 10:41pm

My phone has never rang for a political anything.

You're doing something wrong.

-------------
Que pasa?

Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 16 January 2010 at 10:43pm

rednekk98 wrote:

14 phone calls today, both campaigns, and pollsters combined. The majority of robo-calls were from Coakley, Brown is actively recruiting people to make personal calls. As soon as you hang up the phone often rings again. Now I know how Iowans feel during the primaries. I'm glad MA matters for once, but holy hell....

Callers for Brown are actually from all over the country. His campaign is recruiting people from everywhere to call MA voters in an effort I guess to make anyone feel like they can help.

-------------
?

Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 16 January 2010 at 11:01pm

Reb Cpl wrote:

Callers for Brown are actually from all over the country. His campaign is recruiting people from everywhere to call MA voters in an effort I guess to make anyone feel like they can help.

Confirmed.

I've already received 3 emails about it from organizing for america (obama's campaign email list). I can only imagine the annoying amount of email people on move on's list are getting.

I'm not certain why Coakley isn't using McCain's email list more effectively. I haven't received an email from that list other than lets defeat health care and deficits are bad mmmkay.

I find the technology gap between the two parties campaigns in the past two years to be rather shocking.

-------------

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 17 January 2010 at 6:20pm

And I spoke 1 day too soon, I just got an email from the McCain list asking me to make calls for Brown.

-------------

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 18 January 2010 at 10:30am

Brown is actually dominating online, and in social media, but we'll have to wait until tomorrow to see if that translates to votes considering brown is likely to have a lot of out of state fans. Coakley's conflicting message of "A vote for Scott Brown is a vote for the status quo" and her trying to portray herself as just like Kennedy falls kinda flat. Republicans and Independants are excited about Scott Brown, Democrats are not excited about Coakley, but may be afraid of Brown or just angry at Republicans. I don't see her pulling many votes across party lines. Her campaign is frankly stale. She's running against Bush in 2004 and Brown is trying to run like Obama in 2008. This has surprised me more than anything.

Brown's message has been: Direct appeal to independants, have an actual debate over health care, not between liberal and conservative democrats and unions. Run on anti-government corruption record

Coakley's message has been: Direct appeal to Democrats, rape victims, and the unemployed. Run on anti private-sector corruption record. Add a healthy dash or fear-mongering as well.

I missed the primary election (first vote I've missed since being registered) but considered it to essentially be the election and figured it was my only real chance to pick. I'd hate to make a prediction and jinx it, but I think short of a video surfacing of brown sodomizing a puppy being released in the next 30 hours or so, he will win. Even if he doesn't, he's already come damned close in a very unlikely state and this race will have serious effects on future campaign strategies and probably the outcome of future elections.

Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 18 January 2010 at 10:43am

I obviously don't live in Massachusetts, but everything I've read about this race, and the people I've talked to about it, said that neither candidate is a very strong or supported contender within the state.

It's like the 2004 presidential elections, but with more beans and Hahvahd Yahd or whatever else you folks do up there.

Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 18 January 2010 at 12:29pm

I would be very surprised if brown won...

It would elminate the 60 vote majority, and the democratic machine wouldn't allow that...

-------------
They tremble at my name...

Posted By: Hades
Date Posted: 18 January 2010 at 12:46pm

Hopefully the event turns into another "hanging chad" incident.

-------------

Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 18 January 2010 at 12:56pm

Besides, Brown drives a truck, and the liberal elites made it clear that if you drive a truck you are not good enough to be a Senator of the US...

Because they are better than you.

-------------
They tremble at my name...

Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 18 January 2010 at 9:56pm

Brown's lead is now beyond the margin of error judging by a few polls. The more I research, the more I realize that Coakley has run a terrible, terrible campaign, which a message targeted at only the most left leaning voters. I think her campaign is deluded into thinking the 2008 elections were a rubber stamp for every single idea they've had and there's been a massive conversion. Coakley bombed in foreign policy during the debates, about as hard as Sarah Palin. She wan'ts us out of Afghanistan because there apparently are no more Taliban or Al-Queda there. But if they're elsewhere, we shouldn't go there either. She is not the candidate the Dems need, and not running the right kind of campaign. Brown is tapping into populist sentiments, and I feel Coakly thought she could just run a charicture of a Democratic campaign in a blue state (11% of registered voters are Republicain) but has very little insite into what motivates independenents and what their concerns are. This state is majority independent, I mean we did elect several Republican governors before the current one (Obama-lite) and his popularity is sliding. I don't think we'd want to elect a Pelosi-lite at this time. I can forsee this guy being about as right wing as Liberman was left.

Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 19 January 2010 at 8:53am

The country is centrist. Not radical left or radical right.

This president and congress are radical left.

When America voted for Change, they didn't mean a radical change. This election along with the others a few months back lend credence to that thought.

According to polls most Americans want small government and less regulation. Which is the opposite of what we have now, so we will see a shift the other direction as once people lose their jobs, and can't find a comparable one to replace it. They will change their allegence.

The republicans were just as bad when they "ran" things.

Politicians need to realize that "the PEOPLE" are the ones in charge.

The tea party is a good example of the liberal elites inablity to realize what is coming. By bashing them with namecalling and ignoring the huge numbers of people that they brought out. They are just minimalizing their influence in the future.

Ignoring the way the president proclaims that the stimulus has saved or created 2 million jobs... When we have lost over 4 million this year is a perfect example.

People need jobs, and higher taxes never increase jobs. This administration has used up all of its political capital. And yet they are still wasting money for slush funds for their pet projects...

It's time to pay for that oversight.

Here is an article that echos many of my comments.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/19/americans-shifted-party-ideology/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fpolitics+%2528Text+-+Politics%2529&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/19/americans-shifted-party-ideology/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fpolitics+%2528Text+-+Politics%2529&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

-------------
They tremble at my name...

Posted By: mod98commando
Date Posted: 19 January 2010 at 11:33am

FreeEnterprise wrote:

...

Here is an article that echos many of my comments.

Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 19 January 2010 at 12:20pm

According to CMPA, fox news is the most fair and balanced news network.

http://www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_21_Election_Study.pdf - http://www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_21_Election_Study.pdf

Some people are just closed minded and only view things that fit their personal agenda, but I would assume most on here would at least pretend not to be that way... (cept for a few vocal parties)

And after the way the media has beat the drum for Obama, while we have all watched as 4 million jobs have been lost under this president... I'm sure people are starting to realize they have been led to the slaughter by the media elite.

-------------
They tremble at my name...

Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 19 January 2010 at 12:27pm

FreeEnterprise wrote:

According to CMPA, fox news is the most fair and balanced news network.

http://www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_21_Election_Study.pdf - http://www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_21_Election_Study.pdf

Some people are just closed minded and only view things that fit their personal agenda, but I would assume most on here would at least pretend not to be that way... (cept for a few vocal parties)

If you HONESTLY think Fox News is the most fair and balanced, you're out to lunch. They had so many errors last year they had to reboot with a zero-errors policy, removing everything non-essential to ensure accuracy. They didnt make it one month without several more errors.

I know we won't change your mind, but using Fox News as your sole reliable source is just crazy.

Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 19 January 2010 at 12:37pm

choopie911 wrote:

FreeEnterprise wrote:

According to CMPA, fox news is the most fair and balanced news network.

http://www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_21_Election_Study.pdf - http://www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_21_Election_Study.pdf

Some people are just closed minded and only view things that fit their personal agenda, but I would assume most on here would at least pretend not to be that way... (cept for a few vocal parties)

I don't study the news networks personally, but CMPA does... And THEY said that fox news is the most fair and balanced. So take it up with them.

What news network do you think is fair and balanced?

-------------
They tremble at my name...

Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 19 January 2010 at 12:40pm

I honestly can't say, as I don't just take one sources word for it. It's extremely difficult to not be even slightly biased, so multiple sources is ideal obviously. I just seriously don't understand how anyone still thinks fox is factual when it's been called on falsities so many times.

Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 19 January 2010 at 12:57pm

Easy, it tells people what they want to hear.

-------------

Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 19 January 2010 at 1:19pm

I enjoyed http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-18-2010/mass-backwards - this .

Jon Stewart wrote:

See, it's not that the Republicans are playing chess and the Democrats are playing checkers, the Republicans are playing chess, and the Democrats are in the nurse's office, because once again they glued their balls to their thighs.

Great segment.

-------------

Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 19 January 2010 at 7:43pm

I don't know if this has already been posted, but even if it has, it needs to be brought up again.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/19/health.care/index.html - http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/19/health.care/index.html

"Better than nothing?" Is that really what this has come down to? "Oh, we don't really care what is in the health care bill, we're shaking **edited** up no matter what. Who cares if we no longer feel like we're representing our constituents." I can imagine that even democrats are happy with this kind of thinking, because obviously this means that they care more about passing the bill as a statement than making a "solid plan."

-------------
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo

Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 19 January 2010 at 9:01pm

Oops, Republicans are cheating!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/19/dems-some-voters-got-ballots-already-marked-for-republican/ - http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/19/dems-some-voters-got-ballots-already-marked-for-republican/

-------------
?

Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 19 January 2010 at 9:05pm

Wow, thats retarded. Jobs better be lost over that

Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 19 January 2010 at 9:13pm

I want more proof than just someone crying foul before I draw any conclusions. Desperation is a stinky perfume.

-------------
?

Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 19 January 2010 at 9:27pm

Reb Cpl wrote:

I want more proof than just someone crying foul before I draw any conclusions. Desperation is a stinky perfume.

I mean if it's true of course, not making any assumptions based on that article. Also lately I keep wanting to spell article as arcticle...

Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 19 January 2010 at 9:34pm

Brown won.

Score.

-------------

Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 19 January 2010 at 9:39pm

I'm predicting a Brown victory (CNN just called it) followed by a lengthy court battle that Brown will also win, and it being ugly enough to backfire on Democrats when they jam through the senate version of the health bill which is more moderate than the house, but still pretty unpopular.

Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 19 January 2010 at 10:01pm

Obama seems to have the Grim Reaper's touch on every campaign he touches.

-------------

Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 19 January 2010 at 10:20pm

I heard turnout in Boston was terrible, does that mean western MA is actually politically important now? Total game changer, for the better IMO. I don't like the idea of swapping one radical party dominance for another. I'm glad that as an unenrolled, independent voter from western MA my vote has not been taken for granted. Scott Brown had better realize that independents are why he's been elected or he will have a short term.

Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 19 January 2010 at 10:59pm

Gas up the Truck we're going to DC!

-------------

Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 19 January 2010 at 11:41pm

Evil Elvis wrote:

Obama seems to have the Grim Reaper's touch on every campaign he touches.

Except his own?

-------------

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Posted By: CarbineKid
Date Posted: 19 January 2010 at 11:42pm

For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of Massachusetts

Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 8:38am

That shows just how bad of a candidate Coakley was.

Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 9:45am

agentwhale007 wrote:

That shows just how bad of a candidate Coakley was.

Oh please...

NJ, Virginia and now Mass...

Must be LOTS of bad candidates running for office all of a sudden.

No way this could be "the people" trying to take back their government that has gone WAY to the left in the past year.

mass, 3 democrats for every 1 republican...

At least think for yourself instead of following in lockstep with the spin being put out by the whitehouse.

-------------
They tremble at my name...

Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 9:51am

This must be some of that imbalanced reporting you guys love...

The double standard is astounding, imagine if rush, beck or anyone on fox news said anything even similar to this...

-------------
They tremble at my name...

Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 9:56am

From a 20pt lead where she was called the 'perfect' candidate for Kennedy's seat, to losing in two weeks just shows that the Dem's are throwing her under the bus in Wednesday morning quarterbacking.

The primary reason she lost was the 'royalist' attitude of the government in not listening to the people and claiming ony they know how to run the government.

Wake up call for Dems everywhere, listen to the people start going moderate and save your own job, while trying to return jobs to America and lower taxes to let bussiness thrive.

KEY WORD- Compromise, do not dictate from behind closed doors and then claim you have an open and transparrent administration.

And talking about 'bad jokes' please explain Al Franken for us. And yes if Rush or Glenn said anything like Obermann about a Dem the cry would be for thier head on a platter.

-------------

Posted By: slackerr26
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 10:03am

FreeEnterprise wrote:

agentwhale007 wrote:

That shows just how bad of a candidate Coakley was.

Oh please...

NJ, Virginia and now Mass...

Must be LOTS of bad candidates running for office all of a sudden.

No way this could be "the people" trying to take back their government that has gone WAY to the left in the past year.

mass, 3 democrats for every 1 republican...

At least think for yourself instead of following in lockstep with the spin being put out by the whitehouse.

so i guess once the dems took over all the republican candidates were bad too. i guess we take back the government everytime party majority changes. take your own advice and stop drinking the Fox/conservative blog koolaid

-------------

Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 10:10am

Really slacker... That is the best you have?...

How about this little article that is the top article on MSNBC.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34952671/from/RSS/ - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34952671/from/RSS/

"For weeks considered a long shot, the 50-year-old Brown seized on voter discontent to overtake Coakley in the campaign's final stretch. His candidacy energized Republicans, including backers of the "tea party" protest movement, while attracting disappointed Democrats and independents uneasy with where they felt the nation was heading.

"I voted for Obama because I wanted change," said John Triolo, 38, a registered independent who voted in Fitchburg. "I thought he'd bring it to us, but I just don't like the direction that he's heading."

Even before the first results were announced, administration officials were privately accusing Coakley of a poorly run campaign and playing down the notion that Obama or a toxic political landscape had much to do with the outcome.

Coakley's supporters, in turn, blamed that very environment, saying her lead dropped significantly after the Senate passed health care reform shortly before Christmas and after the attempted Christmas Day airliner bombing, which Obama himself said showed a failure of his administration."

So, I was pointing out that whales post was lockstep with the spin the administration is using to try and say that the people love obama's policies. When that is clearly not the case in my mind.

This is Mass... after all...

-------------
They tremble at my name...

Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 10:20am

FreeEnterprise wrote:

No way this could be "the people" trying to take back their government that has gone WAY to the left in the past year.

No way this is just the documented trend of the opposition party being elected after a presidential election, a trend that has been around for quite a while now.

Nah, your theory is more likely. Wink

Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 10:29am

Ahh, the joys of liberal education...

Here whale, read this article when you get a minute. Try to read it with an open mind.

http://bigjournalism.com/cderussy/2010/01/20/rethinking-bush-a-year-later-how-the-msm-cracked-up/ - http://bigjournalism.com/cderussy/2010/01/20/rethinking-bush-a-year-later-how-the-msm-cracked-up/

If you truly want to be a journalist in the future, you need to recognize the danger of being too similar to the current crop of journalists that are viewed in a particular way by typical Americans. To have views that so clearly match theirs puts your input in danger of being deemed typical to the people that will be hiring in the future. (you know, the ones that have a business plan that actually tries to get more readers instead of just rehashing the typical liberal dialog). As they will be the ones hiring...

MSM has destroyed their reputation, and the general public has caught on.

According to polls, the country is centrist. Not left or right. All too often your views come across as far left.

Which is a dangerous position for someone with journalism aspirations in the current news climate.

-------------
They tremble at my name...

Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 10:31am

I can't speak for the NJ or Mass elections, but I can speak for the VA elections and I can tell you that the Republican wins in this state had more to do with the fact that the Dems couldn't field any candidates worth looking at, let alone voting for. Criegh Deeds was a joke, and from what I gather, the dem candidate in Mass wasn't much to look at either.

I also expect that voter apathy has a lot to do with this. Presidential elections tend to mobilize much larger groups of under and un-educated for polling. They tend to see the president as "all powerful" and don't realize how important local elections are to their everyday lives. The same goes for both parties btw.

-------------
<Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>

Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 10:42am

tallen702 wrote:

I can't speak for the NJ or Mass elections, but I can speak for the VA elections and I can tell you that the Republican wins in this state had more to do with the fact that the Dems couldn't field any candidates worth looking at, let alone voting for. Criegh Deeds was a joke, and from what I gather, the dem candidate in Mass wasn't much to look at either.

I also expect that voter apathy has a lot to do with this. Presidential elections tend to mobilize much larger groups of under and un-educated for polling. They tend to see the president as "all powerful" and don't realize how important local elections are to their everyday lives. The same goes for both parties btw.

it was a record turnout...

Estimates placed voter turnout between 40% and 55% of registered voters, a stunningly high total for a special election.

No apathy there...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-naw-mass-senate20-2010jan20,0,4411721.story - http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-naw-mass-senate20-2010jan20,0,4411721.story

-------------
They tremble at my name...

Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 10:43am

The Dem and media Kool-aid- It was not our ideology, it was the individual that resulted in our loss. Convienient, but WRONG.

For weeks she was touted as the 'perfect' replacement, and when the Dems turned a local election into a national referendum on thier ideology they ensured the loss. Even Obama belittling Brown for driving a pickup, how can Brown be 'qualified' to be in our Senate?

Yes, the 'Royalist' attitude is going to bite Dems many more times in 2010, and again in 2012, unless they go moderate or centrist real quick.
Nelson is already doomed in Nebraska and he knows it and is slowly shifting position to the middle and maybe ecen slightly right, to save his butt, go figure.

And the sale of that Kool-aid began least night in Mass, and many on the left will continue to drink it.

-------------

Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 10:52am

Here is someone who is very influential in politics, he has a very interesting perspective from someone who voted for Obama...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-01-19/hes-done-everything-wrong/ - http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-01-19/hes-done-everything-wrong/

-------------
They tremble at my name...

Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 10:59am

FreeEnterprise wrote:

Ahh, the joys of liberal education...

Twelve years in a private Christian elementary-middle-high school and undergraduate university in the middle of Florida.

Liberal education Wink

Here whale, read this article when you get a minute. Try to read it with an open mind.

http://bigjournalism.com/cderussy/2010/01/20/rethinking-bush-a-year-later-how-the-msm-cracked-up/ - http://bigjournalism.com/cderussy/2010/01/20/rethinking-bush-a-year-later-how-the-msm-cracked-up/

Interesting article. I agree with a lot of it - especially the mass blame on Bush for events after Katrina when many more people were involved in that debacle.

I wish they wouldn't lump pundits in with journo-folk though.

If you truly want to be a journalist in the future, you need to recognize the danger of being too similar to the current crop of journalists that are viewed in a particular way by typical Americans.

I am aware most people dislike journalists due to misconception that pundits are journalists, and the dreary moronic decay that is the 24-hour cable news cycle.

There is a reason I am trying to go to graduate school to learn more about online news management and development.

To have views that so clearly match theirs

Who is "they."

I also get the feeling that you are mixing what I say here - a place where I can freely express my opinions - with the work I do as a journalist. You've read my work before - at least some of it. I don't interject my opinions into my news stories. Neither do the others I know.

My newsroom has religious Christians, registered Republicans and Democrats, a few libertarians, etc., and everyone knows you keep your opinions out of the articles.

puts your input in danger of being deemed typical to the people that will be hiring in the future. (you know, the ones that have a business plan that actually tries to get more readers instead of just rehashing the typical liberal dialog)

If I know anything about who will be hiring in the future, It's going to come down to who can manage and develop Web-based content. Not what your opinion is. You shouldn't be expressing your opinion at work anyway.

MSM has destroyed their reputation, and the general public has caught on.

There are a lot more people playing watchdog to the media. This is not a bad thing in the least.

I'm confused though as to what kind of "destroying" is going on here.

And before you bring it up, newspapers died because they are an outdated medium no longer culturally relevant.

All too often your views come across as far left.

Well this is interesting. Which views do I have that are far to the left side of the spectrum?

If you find me a political spectrum test, I will gladly take it and post the results. Or if you want to ask me where I stand on something I will express my views.

When it comes to the real existing world, I am anything but far left.

Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 11:12am

agentwhale007 wrote:

That shows just how bad of a candidate Coakley was.

This is an example of your opinion. That also follows the spin of the administration. Clearly she was a good candidate, and shoo-in for "Kennedy's" seat.

I may have read more into that statement than I should have, but it came across like you were totally on board with the administrations spin, which to agree with their spin puts your opinion as narrow minded towards the far left viewpoints of the current administration.

In a nutshell.

but, maybe I took too much from that single sentence...

-------------
They tremble at my name...

Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 11:21am

FreeEnterprise wrote:

but, maybe I took too much from that single sentence...

Mayhaps. I think you're making a bit of an assumption here.

If you look back in this thread, I was saying - back while Obama was actively campaigning for Coakley - that I thought both she and Brown were drab, dull candidates based on what I know about them and what people who live in Mass have told me about them.

Now, if I was toeing the administration's line, why would I say that Coakley as dull, drab and a bad candidate back then?

Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 11:22am

So tallen, are you saying the the MA election was decided by a more educated group of likely voters than a presidential election? I'm flattered.

Coakley did run a terrible campaign and was not a likeable candidate. I think everyone can agree that this was the case, but I don't see this as the only factor.

The trend of MA politics is towards independent voters, who are the majority in this state while Republicans make up about 11%. In recent elections independent voters have become more and more the deciding factor. Obama ran a pretty centrist campaign and called for a lot of the same political reforms Brown was talking about. The health care debate started out looking like it had a shot at being bi-partisan, then Republicans looked like they were going to stonewall and the Democrats realised that they could theoretically ram anything they wanted through congress. They soon remembered that some members aren't from totally blue districts and are vulnerable, so they took it out of the spotlight. This is a failure of the Democratic leadership to think beyond their own far-left agenda and consider the country as a whole. Their attitude seemed that their agenda was an inevitable evolution of political ideology and that the backward commoners would eventually see the light, so they might as well pass the healthcare bill they wanted. This was hubris at its best. The 2006 Democrat gains were mostly moderate candidates, like Jim Webb (who I like a lot). I don't think MA is going to turn into a state full of Glenn Beck clones, Webb's win in VA certainly hasn't turned the state into a hippie commune.
I sincerely hope this is a sign of the future of politics and that people are sick of this hyper-partisanship and clowns like Beck, Olberman, Limbaugh and Maddow. I'd like to see more independents, 3rd parties, moderates and populists in office.

Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 11:24am

rednekk98 wrote:

So tallen, are you saying the the MA election was decided by a more educated group of likely voters than a presidential election? I'm flattered.

Coakley did run a terrible campaign and was not a likeable candidate. I think everyone can agree that this was the case, but I don't see this as the only factor.

The trend of MA politics is towards independent voters, who are the majority in this state while Republicans make up about 11%. In recent elections independent voters have become more and more the deciding factor. Obama ran a pretty centrist campaign and called for a lot of the same political reforms Brown was talking about. The health care debate started out looking like it had a shot at being bi-partisan, then Republicans looked like they were going to stonewall and the Democrats realised that they could theoretically ram anything they wanted through congress. They soon remembered that some members aren't from totally blue districts and are vulnerable, so they took it out of the spotlight. This is a failure of the Democratic leadership to think beyond their own far-left agenda and consider the country as a whole. Their attitude seemed that their agenda was an inevitable evolution of political ideology and that the backward commoners would eventually see the light, so they might as well pass the healthcare bill they wanted. This was hubris at its best. The 2006 Democrat gains were mostly moderate candidates, like Jim Webb (who I like a lot). I don't think MA is going to turn into a state full of Glenn Beck clones, Webb's win in VA certainly hasn't turned the state into a hippie commune.
I sincerely hope this is a sign of the future of politics and that people are sick of this hyper-partisanship and clowns like Beck, Olberman, Limbaugh and Maddow. I'd like to see more independents, 3rd parties, moderates and populists in office.

good points.

-------------
They tremble at my name...

Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 11:26am

I don't know how bad a candidate Coakley was, but all signs point to her having run a bad campaign.
Suspicion is that she took this race for granted and got sloppy woth it. "A republican in Massachusetts? LOL!"

I think she relied on history rather than make an appeal to the moderates and independants.

This has got to drive President Obama nuts though. As someone on the radio put it this morning, he had a direct hand in the MA race, as well as NJ and VA, and even campaigned for the olympics...and lost them all.

-------------
?

Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 11:28am

agentwhale007 wrote:

FreeEnterprise wrote:

but, maybe I took too much from that single sentence...

Ok, I'll take you at your word.

I do have a unrelated question though. Why has the MSM and print journalists ignored the whole Kevin Jennings (safe schools czar) controversy?

The stuff that came out is so shocking I can't believe it hasn't hit the papers... But, nothing...

-------------
They tremble at my name...

Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 11:29am

Reb Cpl wrote:

I don't know how bad a candidate Coakley was, but all signs point to her having run a bad campaign.
Suspicion is that she took this race for granted and got sloppy woth it. "A republican in Massachusetts? LOL!"

I think she relied on history rather than make an appeal to the moderates and independants.

This has got to drive President Obama nuts though. As someone on the radio put it this morning, he had a direct hand in the MA race, as well as NJ and VA, and even campaigned for the olympics...and lost them all.

Bah, he is no loser. Remember, he won the peace prize!

-------------
They tremble at my name...

Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 11:55am

FreeEnterprise wrote:

Ok, I'll take you at your word.

You can just look at when I post things.

I do have a unrelated question though. Why has the MSM and print journalists ignored the whole Kevin Jennings (safe schools czar) controversy?

The stuff that came out is so shocking I can't believe it hasn't hit the papers... But, nothing...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/02/jennings.student/index.html?iref=allsearch

Because it ended up not being that much of a story.

FOX News ended up having to write a correction for their original report where it said he covered up statutory rape because they were in a hurry to push the story and didn't bother fact checking.

Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 11:58am

QFT

This has got to drive President Obama nuts though. As someone on the radio put it this morning, he had a direct hand in the MA race, as well as NJ and VA, and even campaigned for the olympics...and lost them all.

This also.

When you look at things like this, stacked failures - even if they are not REAL failures like the Olympics - can weigh on a president a lot.

It drove LBJ to depression and Nixon to madness.

Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 12:14pm

agentwhale007 wrote:

FreeEnterprise wrote:

I do have a unrelated question though. Why has the MSM and print journalists ignored the whole Kevin Jennings (safe schools czar) controversy?

The stuff that came out is so shocking I can't believe it hasn't hit the papers... But, nothing...

I'm surprised you don't know... That wasn't the issue I was referring to.

It is too explicit to link to on here, but you can google. "kevin jennings glsen student book list" and see what I am talking about.

The books he recommends, (since he is the founder of GLSEN, and responsible for their content and direction) is disturbing at best, and not someone who should be in charge of "safe" schools...

-------------
They tremble at my name...

Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 12:23pm

That's odd, I didn't expect a freedom-loving patriot such as yourself to be an advocate of censorship.

-------------

Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 12:32pm

Eville wrote:

That's odd, I didn't expect a freedom-loving patriot such as yourself to be an advocate of censorship.

Forcing perverse sexual deviant practices on children (7th grade) during their public education should not be advocated by "safe schools" leaders.

Their job is to censor things that have moral issues. This clearly is one of those cases. But, our Political correctness forces the media to stay silent on the issue to keep from being labeled anti-gay. When this would be seen as pandering explicit material in any other time period in history.

Every patriot realizes that freedom from smut should be part of a civilized society.

-------------
They tremble at my name...

Posted By: StormyKnight
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 12:34pm

Here is your Political Compass Test, Whale:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test - http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Here's a overly simplified one:

http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html - http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html

-------------

Posted By: StormyKnight
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 12:36pm

FreeEnterprise wrote:

Every patriot realizes that freedom from smut should be part of a civilized society.

What?!?

-------------

Posted By: Yomillio
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 12:38pm

FreeEnterprise wrote:

agentwhale007 wrote:

FreeEnterprise wrote:

I do have a unrelated question though. Why has the MSM and print journalists ignored the whole Kevin Jennings (safe schools czar) controversy?

The stuff that came out is so shocking I can't believe it hasn't hit the papers... But, nothing...

I'm surprised you don't know... That wasn't the issue I was referring to.

It is too explicit to link to on here, but you can google. "kevin jennings glsen student book list" and see what I am talking about.

The books he recommends, (since he is the founder of GLSEN, and responsible for their content and direction) is disturbing at best, and not someone who should be in charge of "safe" schools...

Looked it up. If all that is in fact true (no reason to say it isn't)...

Thats pretty scary.

-------------

http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=172327 - Forum XBL Gamertag Collection

Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 12:39pm

FreeEnterprise wrote:

The books he recommends, (since he is the founder of GLSEN, and responsible for their content and direction) is disturbing at best, and not someone who should be in charge of "safe" schools...

I bolded the key issue I have with that argument, and the following statement.

He founded the group, but was involved in the day-to-day operations of the group?

Granted, if he was, or did, then my opinion of this changes. Some of the material is inappropriate for the age group listed.

I've heard of the story, but frankly I thought it required more investigation than anyone seemed willing to do, even FOX, sadly. Lazy ass journalists are frustrating to everybody.

That, or someone did look into it and found out he never picked the books or knew about it, and they never wrote a followup.

Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 12:41pm

FreeEnterprise wrote:

Eville wrote:

That's odd, I didn't expect a freedom-loving patriot such as yourself to be an advocate of censorship.

Forcing perverse sexual deviant practices on children (7th grade) during their public education should not be advocated by "safe schools" leaders.

I may be missing something here, but who was "forcing?"

Every patriot realizes that freedom from smut should be part of a civilized society.

Wait, what? I'm going to need this one explained to me.

Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 12:54pm

More?

I can't link the youtube for obvious reasons, but if someone happened to search looking for it.

warning graphic safe school czar kevin jennings is bent on corrupting the children of america

they might find some information that was passed out to 7th graders in class...

There is no defense for propoganda like this being passed out in schools to 13 year olds.

-------------
They tremble at my name...

Posted By: Yomillio
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 12:57pm

StormyKnight wrote:

Here is your Political Compass Test, Whale:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test - http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Economic Left/Right: -0.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.23

Apparently I'm pretty centrist, considering the scale is -10 to 10.

-------------

http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=172327 - Forum XBL Gamertag Collection

Posted By: Hades
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 12:59pm

LOL, so you are upset about teaching children about homosexuality?

I think schools should go even further in what they teach about homosexuality.

Perhaps suicide rates among teens would decrease.

-------------

Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 1:21pm

My "far left" attitudes:

Posted By: Yomillio
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 1:33pm

Hades wrote:

LOL, so you are upset about teaching children about homosexuality?

I think schools should go even further in what they teach about homosexuality.

Perhaps suicide rates among teens would decrease.

Did you bother reading about the books the guy apparently suggested?

-------------

http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=172327 - Forum XBL Gamertag Collection

Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 1:39pm

Yup, your a leftist whale.

Here is mine.

The Political Compass

Economic Left/Right: 6.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.28

I'm Friedman...

-------------
They tremble at my name...

Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 3:24pm

You also lean more towards authoritarianism. You like big government for than a liberal. How does that make you feel?

Economic Left/Right: -0.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.74

-------------

Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 3:38pm

I'm a commie.

-------------

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 3:45pm

Judging from what we've seen so far, FE, who claims to be the "norm" most of the time certainly isn't.

-------------
<Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>

Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 3:56pm

Some of the questions on that test were... a little dumb/out of place IMO.

Economic Left/Right: -2.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.77

-------------

Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 4:09pm

FE is too extreme to be normal.

Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 4:47pm

Wow, during Socilolgy when I took this I was even further right and up, must be slipping.

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 5.44

-------------

Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 5:52pm

oh jeez am I pretty much in the middle? Thought I was a radical left nutjob

Economic Left/Right: -0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.64

-------------
Que pasa?

Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 5:56pm

Duh, any time you disagree with the far right you're obviously far left.

-------------

Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 6:00pm

High Voltage wrote:

Duh, any time you disagree with the far right you're obviously far left.

With us or against us, duh.

Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 6:02pm

Hell I think the only reason I was left on that scale is because I support abortion and gay rights...

-------------
Que pasa?

Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 6:09pm

jmac3 wrote:

Hell I think the only reason I was left on that scale is because I support abortion and gay rights...

Communist! God says that's wrong.

Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 6:13pm

Fail pic?

Anyway:

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90

-------------
BU Engineering 2012

Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 20 January 2010 at 7:30pm

agentwhale007 wrote:

When you look at things like this, stacked failures - even if they are not REAL failures like the Olympics - can weigh on a president a lot.

It drove LBJ to depression and Nixon to madness.

-------------
?

Economic Left/Right: -0.75Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.23

The Political Compass

Economic Left/Right: 6.50Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.28

Economic Left/Right: -0.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.74

Economic Left/Right: -2.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.77

Economic Left/Right: -0.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.64

Economic Left/Right: -3.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90

Economic Left/Right: -0.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.23

Economic Left/Right: 6.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.28

Economic Left/Right: -0.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.74

Economic Left/Right: -2.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.77

Economic Left/Right: -0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.64

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90