Severe Poll Turnout Trouble for Rep. Brad Miller (NC-13), David Price (NC-4), Bob Etheridge (NC-2), GK Butterfield (NC-1)...

polifrog



Bye, Brad Miller
Bye, David Price
Bye, Bob Etheridge


Gallup:

Taking Gallup's final survey's margin of error into account, the historical model predicts that the Republicans could gain anywhere from 60 seats on up, with gains well beyond that possible.

It should be noted, however, that this year's 15-point gap in favor of the Republican candidates among likely voters is unprecedented in Gallup polling and could result in the largest Republican margin in House voting in several generations. This means that seat projections have moved into uncharted territory, in which past relationships between the national two-party vote and the number of seats won may not be maintained.

• Week 1 --I had first referred to the voter turnout models by Gallup as possibly flaky. No longer.

• Week 2 --I then referred to them as less flaky the second week. No longer.

• Week 3 --A trend has been born with week three...Advantage Republican.
  

• Week 4 -- The trend has been sustained, though with modest weakening ... Advantage still Republican:

Week 5 -- Last poll by Gallup before the Nov 2 election found here. Advantage remains Republican with extremely modest slide back in the Republican direction. The weakening seen in week 4 has been stemmed.

Under the high voter turnout:
Week (5): 42 /52
Week (4): 43 /52
Week (3): 42 / 53
Week (2): 41 / 53
Week (1): 40 / 53

Under the low voter turnout:
Week (5): 40 / 55
Week (4): 41 / 55
Week (3): 39 / 56
Week (2): 39 / 56
Week (1): 38 / 56


=================


For reference to Gallup's predictive ability I give this via Morning Jay of weeklystandard.com:



=========

Finally, if you assume Brad Miller, David Price, and Bob Etheridge are in "safe" seats, then think again. RCP puts Ethridge in "Leans Dem." and both Miller and Price in "Likely Dem."




The point is, these guys are weak, none have a "safe" seat, so don't let yourself be convinced otherwise and let inertia get the better of you.
-- GO VOTE!

-- GO VOTE!



out

Rep. Bob Etheridge (NC-2) On Cap and Tax (Trade)

polifrog


Bob Etheridge supports and has voted in favor of Cap and Tax (Trade).

Aside from decimating American industry in a false effort to avert Global Warming....



Yea, that Global Warming....How does this bill directly effect the individual?

Within the endless pages of legal ease of the bill is a little ditty that has a detrimental effect on home owners. It, of course, would not only impact home owners but everyone who rents as well, as the owners of the units would pass the increased costs on to the renter. Ok, by that reasoning, it effects anyone who chooses to live in a shelter of any kind.

It does this by requiring property owners to upgrade their homes to meet predetermined efficiency standards. Replacing all windows, upgraded insulation, new furnaces , new water heaters, and new appliances would be required before a home owner would be allowed to sell their home. Least you think this would be a one shot upgrade, remember that advances in efficiency would keep the inspectors returning prior to every sale.

Thought experiment...You've lost your job and have been having difficulty with the mortgage. You need to sell your home...fast. The government efficiency inspector, though, reports in their leisurely way that you need $20,000 in upgrades before you can sell your home and get out from under the mortgage. Your already broke and unlikely able to get a loan for $20,000. You default on your loan. Thank Bob Etheridge.

Thought experiment...You own a rental property you wish to sell and are forced to make one of two decisions. Whether it is a duplex or an apartment complex does not matter. You are considering selling, but selling would mean raising the rents on your tenants to make the expensive Bob Etheridge mandated upgrades to your rental. Your other option is to sit on the property in which case Bob Etheridge's efficiency mandates force you to add to the locking up of the real estate market. Bad for renters, bad for owners, bad for real estate, bad for America.

This is just a tiny facet of Cap and Trade and it is what Bob Etheridge wishes to impose on all Americans.

Politicians like Bob Etheridge believe that their party having been falsely defined as protectors of the poor will shield them from the wrath of the poor and middle class who will shoulder the burden of Cap and Trade. And remember Cap and Trade it is argued will protect us from the hoax that is global warming. This is government intrusion and nothing more.

Bob Etheridge a grade school economist who is truly bad for NC and America.





out

Rep Bob Etheridge (NC-2) Diving beyond Debt and Morality

polifrog


It is a no-brainer....free is expensive, while a cost is less so.

This is a result of a duality in human nature, industriousness and laziness. Assuming a basis in law and property rights societies organized such that they harness the industriousness of humanity find wealth, while societies organized such that laziness is coaxed from their citizenry, yield poverty.

Here is why...

---Situation 1
A person spends their own money.
In this case a person sells a piece of their time on earth to earn money. With those dollars that person naturally makes judicious choices in respect to the spending of those dollars. When the whole of society spends judiciously and wisely, the resulting pressure on suppliers forces them to produce what end users want and forces the costs of goods to drop. Thus a cost makes a society efficient, lean, inexpensive, and above all moral.

---Situation 2
A person spends money that person did not earn.
The value of the dollars in such a person's possession are lessened as they are unearned dollars. That person will, by nature, not spend those dollars as judiciously as the individual in situation 1, but they do spend the dollars on those things they need and desire. This lessens the pressure on suppliers to keep costs down and efficiencies high, but, at least, the suppliers cater to the needs of society. We see this in charity. We also see it in the form of welfare.

---Situation 3
A person spends dollars they did not earn and they spend those dollars on others.
This is the worst of the three situations. The value of the dollars to the spender is less than in situation 1, but the impact of these dollars on society are worse than in situation 2. In this case the dollars are not spent by the end user, but rather a middle man whose interests are not interests of the end user, thus the suppliers cater not to the end user, but to the middle man. This skews what is produced by the producers away from the needs of the end user and toward the middleman, but most perniciously, this situation turns the end user into, not just a business cost, but an unproductive business cost to be minimized. Lastly, too much of this situation in combination with situation 2 results is a very inefficient society that leads to impoverishment as the price of goods rise. The citizenry, of course, still pays for the goods through their ever increasing taxes. Breaking the back of capitalism by divorcing the influence of the end user over the producers. In a word...immoral.

Unfortunately, our country is now saddled with a Situation 3 program in ObamaCare. Government will be buying goods for people with other people's money. Somehow Brad Miller and Barak Obama believe immorally restructuring our health-care so that the end user becomes an unproductive business cost is the bees knees.

Bob Etheridge does not understand that Situation 1 economics created the wealth we enjoy through its moral application of human industriousness. Bob Etheridge's support for ObamaCare suggests his support for the immorality of Situation 3 economics, increased debt, and national lethargy.

As an immoral situation 3 program, ObamaCare is inherently inefficient and immensely costly to a society, but President Obama had this to say by way of ABC....

President Barack Obama says he did a full court press for a health care system remake because "this country was going to go bankrupt."

How can a president expect anyone to believe such blithering nonsense? He may as well be convincing the citizens of the US that Guam is in danger of capsizing.



Considering that much of Washington's current budget will be funded through debt spending, and the addition of ObamaCare will serve to exacerbate the problem, we should consider a 4th spending situation not mentioned by Milton Friedman. The moral bankruptcy required to lead a nation in this direction is almost beyond comprehension, yet Bob Etheridge finds a way in situation 4.

---Situation 4
A person spends dollars (not yet earned and not yet taxed from the unborn) on the currently living (for votes).
This combines the worst of situations 2 and 3 and then removes a representative's accountability to their voter's wallets. There is no accountability when a representative is picking the wallet of the unborn.

I guess it is a small thing, though, for Brad Miller to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.

Bob Etheridge, a grade school economist.



out

Bob Etheridge (NC-2) -- Passing Law Before it is Defined:

polifrog


One would think a representative would sign off on law that was not only understood but fully defined. That is not the case for Bob Etheride. Understanding what a law is and what it may become does not seem to matter to Bob Etheridge.

ObamaCare supporters touted a new requirement of within ObamaCare for insurers to carry adults of up 26 years old on their parents policy. As awful as the infantilization of adults is, the requirement seemed simple enough.

Now enter policy:

"The new policy applies only to health insurance plans that offer dependent coverage in the first place: while most insurers and employer-sponsored plans offer dependent coverage, there is no requirement to do so," the Department of Health and Human Services said in a statement Monday.

This is an example of law being defined after its passage and is an excellent example of the way Bob Etheridge and his friends Reid, Pelosi and Obama impart the change they desire on our country.

The announcement is part of the administration's effort to translate the new health-care law into more specific regulations. The full meaning of the sweeping legislation will not be known until the regulations are issued.

It is increasingly clear Bob Etheridge voted for ObamaCare without caring how it effected the people of NC. What is not clear is what Bob Etheridge has foisted upon this nation, as ObamaCare has not fully metastasized.

I suspect this is simply another form of governance through Broken Consent, an example of passing a law in the guise of something that is more palatable to the people than the reality that would not be accepted.

Unacceptable governance by Bob Etheridge.




out