I wonder if the Tea Party hung outside a polling place with clubs warning people not to vote democrat or else if they'd be prosecuted. Hmmm.

I Wear Pants;537492 wrote:While I appreciate that sentiment I disagree that the Tea Party is really anything different from what we've seen.

Since you're likely more in the know as far as Tea Party ideals go what is the general consensus in the Tea Party as far as things like military spending/drug war/telecommunications policies (on the telecommunications front I mean things like net neutrality, COICA, ACTA, etc).

I'm not asking those questions as a quiz of you and don't feel the need to answer all of them if you don't know/don't want to. I just don't know the general Tea Party position on those things and they are areas that I feel very strongly about.

It's real simple, IWP....the Tea Party is about less government intrusion into our lives, less spending, and a return to what the Constitution ordained, not what it's been twisted into. As was previously stated, if the R's fail again, they will sumnmarilied fired and more conservative candidates will be found and nominated. The D's think this is an R thing....that just shows their ignorance about the movement. For the last time....the Tea Party is NOT A POLITICAL PARTY. Those that fail to understand that simple facet also fail to understand the movement.

Ty Webb;537580 wrote:All the Tea Party is is another arm of the Republican party,nothing more nothing less

Ty...you have soooo much potential. You are engaged, conversive, and engaging. Even if you are on the other side politically from me, I enjoy your passion. I think, in time, you will see things as conservatives do, but time and experience will be your best teachers, not I. Having said that, you have no idea about the Tea Party. Do some reading. Do some homework. Learn what it's about before you spout off nonsensically. It's out there for you if you have the patience and desire to learn. Try it...you might like it.

BGFalcons82;537634 wrote:It's real simple, IWP....the Tea Party is about less government intrusion into our lives, less spending, and a return to what the Constitution ordained, not what it's been twisted into. As was previously stated, if the R's fail again, they will sumnmarilied fired and more conservative candidates will be found and nominated. The D's think this is an R thing....that just shows their ignorance about the movement. For the last time....the Tea Party is NOT A POLITICAL PARTY. Those that fail to understand that simple facet also fail to understand the movement.

I don't believe you about that though. I've seen nothing from the current Tea Party candidates and famous supporters to suggest that it's anything but a twist on the Republican formula.

I mean there are key differences and I agree with several of their viewpoints but I feel like they took all the talking points from the Republicans, Libertarians, and Constitution party people and mashed them into one thing. Lot of talking points, not a lot of substance. I mean hopefully I'm wrong and this is a new movement that actually does elect quality leaders with its influence base. But I don't think it's at that point. At least not yet.

I Wear Pants;537492 wrote:While I appreciate that sentiment I disagree that the Tea Party is really anything different from what we've seen.

Since you're likely more in the know as far as Tea Party ideals go what is the general consensus in the Tea Party as far as things like military spending/drug war/telecommunications policies (on the telecommunications front I mean things like net neutrality, COICA, ACTA, etc).

I'm not asking those questions as a quiz of you and don't feel the need to answer all of them if you don't know/don't want to. I just don't know the general Tea Party position on those things and they are areas that I feel very strongly about.

I certainly don't claim to be an expert on official Tea Party doctrine (and can't say I've been to a rally or anything like that), but it seems to me that with regards to spending and government overreach, everything's up for debate. Not to oversimplify, but if it involves an overreaching, extra-constitutional grab by the federal government, it's bad.

I think there's evidence to show they're different from past "movements"- case in point, look at establishment R's who got whacked in recent primaries:

Castle- Delaware
Murkowski- Alaska
Bennett- Utah
(almost) McCain-Arizona

And there are others I'm sure I forgot. That shows me that neither party is sacred or off-limits when it comes to scrutiny and accountability.

I'll give you that it is a more tangible change than simply a new name but I still don't see it as the savior of American politics and integrity that many claim it to be.

I Wear Pants;538133 wrote:I'll give you that it is a more tangible change than simply a new name but I still don't see it as the savior of American politics and integrity that many claim it to be.

Let's hope that we're all pleasantly suprised after time goes by!

I Wear Pants;538133 wrote:I'll give you that it is a more tangible change than simply a new name but I still don't see it as the savior of American politics and integrity that many claim it to be.

It's at least something moderately different...at least on the surface. And that's a start.

I hope to hell that should the Tea Party make a large impact in the coming few elections that I'm wrong and you guys will be able to rub it in my face.

My idea of it is that is more a grass roots movement than an organized 'party' of planks and platforms.The key is that there is to be no more business as usual...no compromise where and when it comes to government expansion into the private lives and affairs of citizens.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_OH_1030513.pdf

Stickland Only down by one


http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/10/31/1031-poll-at-a-glance.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

Strickland down by two

Can someone please explain to me what Josh Mandel has to run on other than "I was a Marine and therefor you should vote for me"

Ty Webb;539744 wrote:http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_OH_1030513.pdf

Stickland Only down by one


http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/10/31/1031-poll-at-a-glance.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

Strickland down by two

Kasich up by 4 - http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010_governor_elections/ohio/election_2010_ohio_governor
Kasich up by 3 - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/governor/oh/ohio_governor_kasich_vs_strickland-1078.html

Time's up Ted.

BGFalcons82;540112 wrote:Kasich up by 4 - http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010_governor_elections/ohio/election_2010_ohio_governor
Kasich up by 3 - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/governor/oh/ohio_governor_kasich_vs_strickland-1078.html

Time's up Ted.

I do think we can both agree BG that this thing as gotten very close and will NOT be decided until very late in the night

Also BG....look at the polling samples for the newest polls....Dispatch and PPP have much higher samples

Ty Webb;540123 wrote:I do think we can both agree BG that this thing as gotten very close and will NOT be decided until very late in the night

Also BG....look at the polling samples for the newest polls....Dispatch and PPP have much higher samples

I'll agree that it has gotten closer...as everyone knew it would. No way Kasich would win by double digits....that was nothing but motivation for Ted's team. In the end, Ted offers nothing new...just more of the same I guess...since his ads are 90% about Kasich's employment with Lehman Bros and nothing about his future for Ohio.

I am perplexed, however, at how bad Lee Fischer is getting stomped by Portmann. Rob is no darling of the media, yet he is pounding Fischer as no one would have ever dreamed. I have to believe a significant number of independents will link Ted to Lee and thus drag them both into unemployment.

I'm not that suprised at how bad Fisher is getting beaten....

Portman has run an amazing campiagn and Fisher has run the 2nd most inept I have ever seen

Ty Webb;540168 wrote:I'm not that suprised at how bad Fisher is getting beaten....

Portman has run an amazing campiagn and Fisher has run the 2nd most inept I have ever seen

Plus, Portman is great and will make a fine Senator. He has a proven track record of reaching across the aisle. That will be badly needed now.

As to the governor race, I have no idea what is going to happen. It looks like Ted has made a nice comeback, but polls can be so unreliable this close out.

ptown_trojans_1;540190 wrote:Plus, Portman is great and will make a fine Senator. He has a proven track record of reaching across the aisle. That will be badly needed now.

As to the governor race, I have no idea what is going to happen. It looks like Ted has made a nice comeback, but polls can be so unreliable this close out.

I agree...I may end up even voting for Portman

53-47. Called before 10:30.

fish82;540249 wrote:53-47. Called before 10:30.

NOPE

Ty Webb;540253 wrote:NOPE

I will agree with you, Ty

The problem with fish's math is that there is always a percent or two that votes for oddball candidates and write-ins...so it's probably something like 52-46 with 2% voting for the intrepids that have no chance.

I think it will be something more like 50-48 either way

BGFalcons82;540272 wrote:I will agree with you, Ty

The problem with fish's math is that there is always a percent or two that votes for oddball candidates and write-ins...so it's probably something like 52-46 with 2% voting for the intrepids that have no chance.

BG....did my comment about who I may vote for Senator suprise you as much as it did me?

Ty Webb;540290 wrote:BG....did my comment about who I may vote for Senator suprise you as much as it did me?

I spit my cheerios, dude.

I did find it interesting that you said Fischer is getting pounded because he ran an inept campaign, not because of his policies. You are considering voting for Portman because of a bad campaign or because you think Portman will be better for Ohio?....careful...this is a loaded question.

Both..

Fisher has not really given me any reason to want to vote for him either with his campaign nor his policies

While I don't agree with most likely half of what Portman stands for....I've read his jobs plan and like that he mentions working across the isle alot. I think I have decided to vote for Portman