Paranoics Question of the Day:
How does the threat of Terror help Obama in terms of the Election, seeing as it lights up the lizard brain against “Hussein” — the “Weak on Terror” angle at play?  Is this the two-party duopoly at work, Obama working for the hidden cause of electing his supposed partisan opponents in order to affect a false dichotemy setting up the Police State.:
As we predicted on four separate occasions would happen, the Obama White House has deliberately contrived a fake terror scare on the eve of the mid-term elections in an effort to subdue the rampaging political appetite for anti-big government candidates that threatens to sweep aside establishment incumbents next week.
The Big Government “War on Terror” Replacements taking the place of the Big Government Incumbents?
Where do they stand on the Oklahoma measure…

OKLAHOMA.  When you go into the ballot box to mark your vote for the Democratic candidate, Jim Rogers
Rogers has no campaign website, doesn’t do fund-raising — he has spent less than $700 on his 2010 race — and mostly walks the streets with a handmade sign in the working-class Oklahoma City suburb where he lives. He told the Associated Press that his top priority is to stop the outsourcing of jobs overseas and rein in the national debt but is otherwise a blank slate.
Efforts to reach Rogers through his Facebook page elicited a response six hours later from someone writing, “I know it’s a pain, but Mr. Rogers mainly conducts interviews through the mail,” and listed an address in Midwest City, Okla. The person added that, “He would likely consent to a phone interview as well, but I don’t have that information available as this page is mostly an informational page from articles.”
Hm.  Jim Rogers is taking a stand.
Rogers has refused comment on any aspect of his personal life.
Yeah, I too am tired of people making issue with, for instance, whether the Delaware candidate was naked and making out with someone years and years ago.
One take-away from this piece:
A spokeswoman for the Oklahoma Democratic Party, Megan Dubray, says the match-up is “not a serious race” and says the focus is on the much more competitive governor’s race.
Where the Democrat trails in the polls by 20 plus points.

Anyway, when you do that, be sure to go to the big issue on the ballot for Oklahoma voters to decide – whether or not to amend the state Constitution to Ban Sharia Law.

Supporters of the initiative to ban Sharia, the Times reports, concede that they do not know of a single case of Sharia being used in the Sooner State, which has about 15,000 Muslims.
“Oklahoma does not have that problem yet,” said Republican state Rep. Rex Duncan, who authored the ballot measure “But why wait until it’s in the courts?”

I’m pretty sure there’s a logical fallacy in there somewhere, but I can’t put my finger on it.
The polling data is from July, and seems to suggest a majority but possibly not a super-majority (I’m assuming what it takes for Constitutional Amendment.)

MINNESOTA.  The Tea Party all about Fiscal matters, part 4,978.
But when asked if he would vote for a Muslim candidate who was a conservative, Phillips replied, “I don’t know.”

WISCONSIN
It is worth mentioning that in the last minute “Restricted Map” loop that Obama is taking for politicking to spur voter turn-out, Russ Feingold and Wisconsin have fallen off the map, and the Democratic “Salvage” operation goes on down.  Senator Ron Johnson, it is presumed. 
Devoid of Obama stumping, we get an endorsement from Bob Barr.
Maybe this shouldn’t freeze the minds of these Democratic Underground posters as much as it does.  Go back to the 1998 Impeachment fight, where Bob Barr was the floor leader in the House.  And, back to a blog post from 2005 off of a New Republic essay

………………………………….
Maybe the ultimate Feingold heresy came during the 1998-1999 Clinton impeachment fight. When Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia offered a resolution to dismiss the charges against the president, every Democrat voted for the resolution but one: Feingold . Again, the issue was process. Feingold argued that Republicans deserved a chance to make their case and put it to a vote and that the Byrd resolution would “in appearance, and in fact, improperly short-circuit this trial” and “call the fairness of the process into question.” The vote was a disaster among his Democratic constituents, according to the Wisconsin Democratic Party chairwoman, who told The Washington Post: “We’re getting a lot of very upset people calling. … Elderly people crying, other people yelling. … They’re just mad as hell.” Feingold ultimately voted against impeachment. 

I point to a part of the Christopher Hitchens  anti-Clinton book No One Left to Lie To, where a single Democratic Senator is having a trouble of conscience about how to vote on the Vote to Impeach Clinton, and is confiding in Chritopher Hitchens. He ultimately votes “no”, but I had wondered who the hell this could possibly be. I thought the only two Senators that would be travelling in Chritopher Hitchens’s circle would be Russ  Feingold and Paul Wellstone (today, his cheerleading for the Iraq War has him the other camp)… does this signify anything? I don’t know.
……………………………….
(Point of reference: in the pages offered online, we see Feingold referenced as “the only member of the Senate who is entitled to call himself and ‘Independent“.)

LOUISIANA .  Awkward.

IDAHO.  This might be the weirdest of Nate Silver’s maps.  You have two candidates, the incumbent “Democrat” Walt Minnick and the Republican challenger Labrador tied at 48.6 percent in the projections, with each at an even 50 percent chance of winning.
And you have the list of polls.  All of them with Minnick leading.
The number skew is obviously political climate and Idaho electorate.
Where he enjoys the support of, um, this group.

ALASKA .  So it goes.

This entry was posted on Saturday, October 30th, 2010 at 1:17 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.