In a recent tea party event, Paul noted that "There are times, and I don't think it is our movement, but there are times when people are using language that shouldn't be used... I'm not saying that's our problem, I'm just saying there are people out in public who are taking away from our message and let's try not to be a part of that. ... Our message has to be a happy message, one of optimism, one of growth."
Paul is right. Conservatives - and especially tea party conservatives - do not have the luxury of a media who will cover up for them. The media is already going to lie about the things conservatives say anyway, why give them more ammo? Republicans do not get breaks. And i you think they do, google George Allen or Rush Limbaugh. The media and Democrats are waiting for any mispoken word that can be turned into a scandal and destroy a career. It;s something they are quite good at, actually. (We that as good at creating jobs or building websites!)
While many have pegged this race as "leans Democrat" it's hard not to imagine it as a solid toss-up. It wouldn't even be a big surprise to see the GOP nominee with a healthy lead by the time the election rolls around as Democrat Mark Begich simply does not have a lot in his favor. He was barely acceptable - and barely won - as the alternative to a guy who was facing Senate expulsion and was politically persecuted just days before the election. He's not only battling his opponent, but a really strong slate of Republicans in other races for Governor, Lt. Governor, and congress who are all expected to win and turn out plenty of Republican voters. Two January, 2014 polls (one Republican, one Democratic firm) average out to a 42-41% lead for the mostly unknown Sullivan and a 42-42% split with Lt Governor Mead Treadwell. That's not where one wants to be as an incumbent, against two mostly unknown candidates, in a state that almost always votes for Republican.
Continue Reading: Preview of the 2013 US Senate Race in Alaska
Continue Reading: 2014 US Senate Race in Michigan Profile
The matter-of-fact stance of climate change enthusiasts is obnoxious given that 1) they refuse debate on the matter; 2) they hide data and evidence 3) their predictions are always wrong; they move the goal posts when they are wrong; 4) they find "new" proof for why they were wrong but are still right by using the same data that they used to wrongly predict what they were predicting that wound up being wrong; 5) their emails get revealed that they purposely hide email disproving their "facts" 6) they are obnoxious.
Is human contribution to changing climate patterns a miniscule factor, or a major one? Are humans single-handily capable of bringing on an ice age by over-powering nature? The mostly one-sided and "research" funded debate goes on (pro tip: if you are one who wants to score some research money, make sure to be a climate change enthusiast), but here are 6 reasons why some of us our skeptical about the human impact on climate change.
We recently interviewed Katrina Pierson, and you can read that here. Pierson is challenging a powerful incumbent in the GOP primary, and here is what Sarah Palin had to say about her candidacy:
"A feisty fighter for freedom, Katrina is taking on a powerful incumbent who has so lost touch with the people of his district that he's not even bothering to spend much time in Texas anymore. It's not only his district he's lost touch with, but also the issues important to the voters there. He used his powerful position to oppose the movement to defund Obamacare, has voted to raise the debt ceiling, and has been an advocate for the NSA intrusion into our freedoms. When asked about Katrina's primary challenge, he said, "these things happen." Yes, they do. We all know what happens when we come together to support a good candidate like Katrina - the permanent political class loses and We the People win! We win by electing a fighter we can depend on like Katrina Pierson."
May the best conservative win...
The Democratic Party is almost certain to lose at least a handful of US Senate seats in the 2014 elections. Potentially, they could lose the chamber altogether if current polling plays out. The Senate race in New Hampshire may not have started out in the top 10 of races to watch - that's how rich this election is in story-lines - but if Scott Brown enters, it certainly will be.
Brown may or may not beat Democratic incumbent Jeanne Shaheen, but one thing is certain: he would require far more resources to defeat than probably any other challenger. With Democrats already needing to defend over a dozen competitive seats, this is not one they want to see land into the top tier. According to Open Secrets, a website with in-depth financial election data, the Democrats and affiliated committees have roughly $100M in cash-on-hand for the 2014 elections, but $40M in debts. The GOP is running a nearly debt-free operation (under $2M owed) with a healthy $90M+ cash-on-hand.
With Democrats already trailing in the polls with 7 Democratic seats, the last thing they want is to have to drop millions of dollars into New Hampshire. This is what Brown would make them do. Brown has already proven he can win in a much tougher state, and he could once again run on Obamacare, the issue that carried him to victory in 2010 but had inexcusably fallen from the hot topics list by 2012. (Well, it's back.) This also helps the GOP. If Brown gets the nomination he will have no problem raising the cash needed to be competitive. He has built-in name recognition that the other Republicans lack. Both of these factors would enable the party to focus on other races rather than worrying about how to fund and build around an unknown candidate. No, Scott Brown is not the ideal conservative. He's not nearly as conservative as Kelly Ayotte, the state's other US Senator. But he is a solid vote against Obamacare and he would make the race an instant toss-up. The best case for Scott Brown may be that he causes the Democrats a whole lot of problems (both in the state and nationally) than they otherwise might have. In 2010, the Democrats put everything they had into defending Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's seat in Nevada. They were stretched thin in an unfavorable landscape. 2014 is a similar landscape, and the tougher the landscape, the better for the GOP.
Now the only question that remains: Does Brown even want to run?
More Reading - Preview: New Hampshire 2014 Senate Race
There is a reason Democrats are targeting US Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in red state Kentucky: he is wildly unpopular, uncharismatic, and ineffective. McConnell's lead has continued to shrink, from a 7 point advantage, down to 4, 1, and now a tie. It has little to do with a surge by Grimes, who has remained unmoved since entering the race. All of McConnell's erosion is his own.
The latest Rasmussen Report poll (that shows a 42-42 tie between McConnell and Grimes) also shows conservative alternative Matt Bevin up 6 on the Democrat. This is a marked improvement from a December poll by PPP that had both Republicans up on Grimes by 1. Though they did not release any primary race figures, Matt Bevin has increased his standing in the primary with every new poll, and the momentum is very Rubio-esque in nature.Here are two things Kentucky conservatives should now consider:
1) If Matt Bevin is electable - and two separate polls now suggest he might be even more electable - should conservatives go with the more conservative of the two? Is it now a greater risk to have McConnell in the race? The establishment candidates blew every race in 2012, so giving them the benefit of the doubt is out of the window.
2) If the GOP retakes control of the Senate, do we really want Mitch McConnell as Majority Leader? Or would we conservatives rather another vote in a new direction? The Senate and Congress are already at bottom-of-the-barrel levels in terms of public opinion, and how does that change by staying with the status quo?
Read Also: 2014 US Senate Race in Kentucky
It's been a pretty awful month for NJ Governor Chris Christie. has he gotten a raw deal? Yeah, probably. The media will always go after Republicans ruthlessly at the end of the day, no matter how one tries. It's no surprise that at the same time he overtook Clinton in polls, "scandals" started surfacing. So, how bad has he fallen? Here's a brief rundown of the polling numbers as aggregated by RCP.
For the Republican nomination, Christie held the top spot in all 7 GOP primary polls taken in Nov/Dec, 2013 by as much as 9 points. In 3 January polls, he has trailed Mike Huckabee, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, and Jeb Bush by as much as 7 points
In the final 3 polls of December, Christie held general election leads of 1, 3, and 2 points. In January, he trailed by an average of 9 points in 4 polls. Meanwhile, Bush, Paul, and Ryan all saw their competitiveness vs Clinton increase into margin-of-error ties.
In Florida, Christie was down just 45-41 vs Clinton. After "bridge-gate" he's losing 51-35 and faring worse than Bush, Rubio, Paul, and Ryan.
In New Hampshire, home of the nation's first primary, Christie led Rand Paul by 12 points the week the story broke. By the end of January he trailed Paul by 1 and 7.