All three went for Trump.

Maybe G*d hasn’t given up on the USA just yet

This appeared around 430PM on Tuesday November 5th., facing East.  Photo credit to RN.

0

0

Selzer’s full record not as pristine as leftist admirers believe

Referencing Selzer’s final poll prior to the 2024 General election, the one she was so wrong about Trump v Harris, Fox reports she published that:

In the 1st Congressional District, 53% of respondents said they preferred the Democratic candidate, while 37% said they would vote or have already voted for the Republican. Democratic challenger Christina Bohannan, therefore, has a 16-point lead over Republican incumbent Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks in their 2022 rematch contest.

The actual result was that Republican Miller-Meeks has prevailed albeit narrowly, nevertheless indicating that besides Trump Selzer was 16 points off in her final poll for that race.

In 2022 Selzer early October released her poll of the statewide race for Attorney General, Republican challenger Brenna Bird  was said by Selzer to be 16 points behind Tom Miller, the longest serving AG in the country. According to the DMR’s own article:

Forty-nine percent of likely voters say they would vote for Miller, a Democrat, compared with 33% who choose Bird, a Republican.

money shot comes later and it isn’t pretty

Brenna Bird defeated Miller by 1 point , making for a 17 p0int fiasco of a poll for Selzer.  True, it was not Selzer’s final poll of the race which then showed a much closer race (still with Brenna loosing) but not to pick up the trend just a couple weeks out is a fools gold standard. There is a game that can be played by pollsters, to bolster or deflate who they want to earlier on, and in order to achieve some credibility provide a more professional poll in the one that is used for comparison to actual voting results — the final poll.

/////

Regarding the June 2010 Republican primary, Selzer showed Bob Vander Plaats at 29%  against then former governor Terry Branstad who she showed at 57%  — a 28 point spread.

https://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=325152

The primary results were Vander Plaats ~~ 40.9% Branstad 50.3 %.   She was off by 18.6 points — clearly unable to evaluate for that race who was likely to turn out, where a candidates support was likely coming from, or lacked any ability (or perhaps desire) to reach them.

////

Election lawyer and columnist Orly Taitz produced a chart of Selzer’s performance:

Pollster Ann Selzer was off by as much as 10.5% in prior elections

From the chart, some other races Selzer was in significant error :

In the 2008 Presidential general election Obama v McCain her poll was off 7.5 from the election results which was outside the margin of error for her poll. In the 2006 Iowa congressional race of Braley v Walen she was off 9+, comparing final poll to election results. In the 1998 Vilsack v. Lightfoot race her final poll was off 10 pts to actual.   In high profile contentious races either Republicans don’t like to talk to pollsters like Selzer or she is using unrepresentative respondents or has more fliers than her sycophants realize.

0

0

REPUBLICANS GAIN US SENATE AND KEEP  US HOUSE*

Trump beats Harris by 13+% in Iowa = over 214,000 votes.

Des Moines Register’s Ann Selzer on suicide watch (see previous post).

Miller-Meeks ekes out another squeaker,

 Trump wins Scott County for first time  

Abortionists, where is thy sting.  Everyone on your billboards here won reelection handily Vondran- Kauffman – Mohr – Mommsen and  Justice May on other ads, their main target, who was up for retention. Those lying spots you spent so much money on against Miller-Meeks – you failed miserably.

More analysis later 

0

0

The following is a comment posted to the publication Townhall as regards what has been the phenomenon of the left media glomming on to the recent DMR- Mediacom fostered Selzer poll supposedly indicating Trump is behind Harris in Iowa.  Selzer argues to the effect that the poll cannot be considered a push for Dems because ~~ wouldn’t it make the Republicans work harder to get out the vote~~. Our argument is that the poll,  if not to demonstrate incompetence, the purpose as presented  is to encourage Democrats in truly battleground states.

I live in a blue county in Iowa and I can say Dems are active, more so than Repubs as far as media and yard signs. That Dems are active is not surprising, that Repub are not more is disappointing but perhaps indicative of presumptions about how the state will go. The presidential race drives too much of the spending and impinges on attention and resources for down ticket races, especially if the Dems see those races as their only hope and focus accordingly. I am looking through the blue hue here so hopefully it is rosier in most of the rest of the state.

Going by the Emerson Poll it is rosier elsewhere but Selzer is maybe loading her calls in blue counties (the 4 or 5 most populated) and all the cat ladies elsewhere in the state who are more willing to answer the phone. But I am still a bit worried about retrenchment for lack of enough fight by Republicans, congressional candidates excepted. However in more sober or less paranoid moments that the state can be predicted to flip in spite of all the other indications of Republican structural increases seems unreasonable.

If I am correctly informed of Selzer’s approach which is that she relies less on weighting and more on random calling than other pollsters, which some might argue takes pollster manipulation out of the results, she may have established the new text book example of the modern day problem with her approach, present for a number of years but this year in her rendition unameliorated by luck of the draw. More broadly referred to as the no-response bias. The problem is that “random” people do not answer their calls. A certain even if undefined “type” do and do not.

More and more “average” people do not answer their phones from unrecognized numbers and those that do might have a bias compared to those that do not. Further there is a particularly palpable resistance by Republicans and particularly Republican men to trust or respond or sit still for any political call interrogations including from honest pollsters who first must cut through the push-polling conducted by campaigns and list mining operations in order to get an interview.

And earnest pollsters are not free from sin and that is also reflected in peoples response to their calls.The tainting of their questions particularly when it comes to issues, the presumptions in the use of language is more and more understood and rejected even if not argued at the time. Their questions are stiff and fixed, and frustrating resulting in no responses, hangups, and incompletes. If more and more people do not trust pollsters, those that due may overrepresent a political nuance or view thus skewing the results. Too many pollsters may be polling unrepresentative trusting people, people who take such calls, people more likely to trust government and other people.

Perhaps Selzer and the DMR — will be properly embarrassed by their incompetence or purposeful thumb on the scale including HOW gleefully they reported the biased news. In 1948, more innocently, pollsters relied on phone contacts which, insufficiently weighted, favored Republicans. It was easy, more Republicans had non-party lines. Maybe after a solid win in Iowa by Trump — more towards the Emerson poll showing 10% margin for Trump, Trump will be able to hold up the Des Moines Register headline after he wins the election, like Truman did in the now iconic photo from 1948.

Even at that, if the DMR was honest or innocent or competent, it would only properly say the race appears to have closed, not that Harris leads, but that would not be good enough to motivate the un-voted Democrats in the other states, that hope they decided to be in service to, the true target of the headlines. It was a get out the vote effort not in Iowa, a small Electoral College state they knew was going Trump despite all their efforts over the years. It was meant for the battleground states.

The true meaning of the poll could just as well be written as Trump may get 47% to Harris 43% in Iowa as that would still be in the margin of error for both. In other words it is just as likely Trump gets 47% not 44% and Harris gets 44% not 47% and still be within the 95% confidence level from the sampling’s 3.4% margin of error.

The same confidence level and margin of error for the Emerson poll puts Trump’s support at +10 thus putting the chances beyond Harris’ reach, for that sample anyway, and assuming neither poll is a flier. One of the two polls is incredible, given all manner of other indications and trends, is significantly biased in its sample methodologies (innocent or not, ) and that poll appears to be Selzer’s.

And by the way wouldn’t an objective news organization give some analysis to an alternative poll unless they were vested (the liberal DMR is invested) in the results of the Selzer poll which they commissioned? Questions arise, did the DMR commission the results or did Selzer play to her own politics, or did she take leave of her senses in constructing and allowing publication without at least insisting on a proper presentation, if nothing else to protect her reputation (however overdone that is as she has had some doozy errors over the years)?

Proper unbiased reporting by other outlets (the usual suspects the DMR was feeding and that ate this up) is not properly a matter of just regurgitating the alleged numbers but rather to at least engage in a cursory examination of the true meaning of the numbers and avoid bias in their presentation of them, which obviously the DMR was not interested in doing. Other consumers of this crap poll if honest would at least mention the existence of a competing poll by a reputable organization, just as recent, with same sample size in same state, same margin of error and degree of confidence. At the very least the use of the Selzer poll was to push.

All that said, I am not as convinced as some of what the degree of early voting means for Republicans compared to alternative uses of resources. The time and resources expended by the formal party involvements are GOTV oriented. They do little on messaging which I maintain, if started early, done well and consistently as to why to vote R, inoculates and changes voting patterns and would be more additive than the net results the paid and volunteer drones produce by pushing early voting.

Chronically there is an inordinate expensive effort at vote by mail rather than, if it is so important to vote early, to do so more securely in person at satellite early voting locations that are reasonably generous across the state. The relative cumbersomeness of vote by mail; that it is not a good government approach to elections as it encourages, certainly enables onesy-twosy fraud; that it prevents proper voter ID, combine to create an aura against Republican interests. The costs associated with promoting one mechanism of voting rather than motivational messaging to increase support and turn more Democrat leaners into Republican voters thus turning the Dem mules into our mules — is not required for Republicans to win, biggly.

0

0

You have heard about it by now.  It is in all the newspapers , broadcast media  etc:

Iowa Poll: Kamala Harris leapfrogs Donald Trump to take lead near Election Day. Here’s how

Never mind the Emerson poll released same day, similar number surveyed, weighted, similar margin of error:

November 2024 Iowa Poll: Trump 53%, Harris 43%

Some outfit is very wrong and we think it is most likely Selzer.

Here are links to the poll publicly released Saturday (apparently earlier to Democrats*) saying Trump is behind by 3 points in Iowa.  The matter deserves attention because of the now undeserved praise still being handed out to poll designer and manager Ann Selzer*

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2024/11/02/iowa-poll-kamala-harris-leads-donald-trump-2024-presidential-race/75354033007/

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2021/11/18/iowa-poll-results-questions-how-works-elections-issues-approval-politics/6291360001/

That is unless accuracy is not the purpose but desired effect

The poll has achieved what I believe may be its purpose — be so useful as to gel last minute enthusiasm, maybe not  Iowa so much, but to be touted by the media and Democrats (forgive redundancy)  in many states to the manipulative effect:  ~~ we can do this, see even Iowa has come around to Harris. We can win this thing everywhere!!  Join the trend, get on the bandwagon~~!!

No?  Consider this story line from the very publication commissioning the poll in question, a breathless summation of theirs about one of their similarly structure polls back in mid September: Excitement and optimism explode for Democrats with Kamala Harris as nominee.

A false or inaccurate  poll could serve other darker purposes, using the work of a “respected” pollster, however arrived at, as a cover-the-cheat poll supposedly to show a trend in support of Harris. ~~ Those found ballots were just part of a trend, don’t you know, as verified by this “respected” pollster ~~ . I put nothing past Democrats in their desperation to defeat Trump.

While the results of outlier polls can be honestly arrived at, a 95% confidence level means there is a chance a poll can be totally off from the actual sentiment, indeed 5% will be.  However this one it can be argued has elements such that only gross incompetence or purposeful skulduggery could come up with such results, according to knowledgable critiques we have seen. See the specific critiques of this poll and general comments about polling of late by pollsters or analysts — like Nate Silver, Mark Mitchell, and others.

One interesting point I believe made by Mitchell is that the national polls are probably most accurate.  (The recent Atlas poll is encouraging for us in that regard). (he Selzer poll is Iowa only. I think he was saying because of homogenization of error in national polls or biases that state polls do not weed out or are inordinately affected by, are the reasons. We think Selzer’s at least suffers from gross non-response bias. Affinities are not represented adequately because they won’t talk to pollsters or answer the phone period.

Some of the critiques of this poll would seem just devastating — maybe not career ending as Selzer can always say ~~ hey it was just a flier, I reported what I got, but look at my track record. I can’t help what people do with it~~.  Right.  But then again she looks maybe near retirement anyway.

So about the non-response bias . . . disregarding the possibility Selzer has adopted CYA pack-polling as per Nate Silver’s description of what is going on with others, and realizing that her alleged accuracy record is not uniform or unassailable, and that coming out of the leftist Des Moines Register media shop, her patron for this effort to the effect that those who pay her bills lie about Republicans all the time and especially when they think they can get away with it, putting a thumb on the scale to keep hope alive nation-wide, pretend a crack in red Iowa, shore up efforts elsewhere, encourage Harris voting herein . . . maybe the poor girl can’t find Republicans to take her calls.

We think its is a real phenomenon especially with Republicans. There is a palpable distrust of polling so no patience with the process, hang-ups, incompletes, non-responses if they do happen to pick up and find out the purpose. Fewer people answer their phones from unknown callers. We would venture that caller ID is active uniformly on land lines and certainly cell lines. The days of not knowing the ringing is from a strange number or not being suspicious this time of year that it is likely a political call, are gone. This is not the time of Princess dial phones, no screen functions at all, and inadvertent pick up and polite submission to interrogation.

So it would seem Selzer has to profile lists to call from to get enough R’s or independents to respond, or make scads of calls to get an answer and then disregard that the person who does answer just might be of a certain type, a bias of one sort or another. Perhaps Republicans she makes contact with tend toward Republicans of the ticket-splitting ilk who think of themselves as good government people on that basis and answering the phone is their duty or something . . . and surely pollsters don’t manipulate. They are still officially R’s but how R? Knowing the demographics one can examine and refine a list to find greater propensity for Trump support or not. And keep in mind that in Civic 101 we were told the polls were so wrong as regards Dewey and Truman because the bias was that more Republicans had private-line phones. The nuances as to who answers may be more subtle now but real.

0

0

This page will be our locus for shorter individual observations and thoughts through Election Day.  Comments and reports from readers to keep this current are very welcome. 

First things first: Vote R across the board with a credible exception being the Supervisor race where Independent Trevor Goodall is more R than the listed.  What we don’t want is Maria Bribriesco who Dems have pinned their hopes on. For Judges do not hesitate to vote to retain David May. For the other retention votes we also recommend yes to  Chicchelly, Langholz and Reidel.  NO on Tabor and Buller.

Early voting in person is available Friday, Saturday and Monday.

Have wee mentioned we like in person voting and think vote by mail is the devil’s playground?

Friday, November 1

• Scott County Library, 200 N. 6th St., Eldridge, 9:00 am-3:00 pm
• Bettendorf Public Library, 2950 Learning Center Campus, Bettendorf, 9:30 am-3:30 pm
• Davenport Public Library, 6000 Eastern Ave., Davenport, 11:00 am-5:00 pm
• Davenport Public Library, 3000 N. Fairmount St., Davenport, 11:00 am-5:00 pm
• Scott County Administrative Center, 600 W. 4th St., Davenport, 8:00 am-4:30 pm

Saturday, November 2

• Scott County Administrative Center, 600 W. 4th St., Davenport, 9:00 am-5:00 pm

Monday, November 4

• Scott County Administrative Center, 600 W. 4th St., Davenport, 8:00 am-4:30 pm

Know that Election Day voting which we think vastly superior in integrity, security and good government compared to the vote-by-mail zeitgeist the Republican apparat is part of   — polls are open 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM.  Use your regular precinct voting location that day.

Rather than spend $$ we opted to revise a 2020 Trump yard sign. People get the point. Three doors up are a bunch of Demo signs.

As to the answer to the lead question ~~ howzit look in Scot County — hell if we know for sure, but driving around some what we see are more Democrat yard signs overall including Harris-Walz. They seem to be at the usual suspect’s domiciles and with a better spread than Republican signs.

• 

  Barn mural in Scott County. Dramatic, lit at night. This guy didn’t need a yard sign he made his own

  It seems Trump- Vance signs are either in short supply (except to purchase your own) or that Iowa is not a targeted state has resulted in fewer operatives making the rounds placing signs. Our own state legislative candidate Mike Vondran  has done a good job of getting his signs out and we have not seen many for his opponent. For our “Trump” advertisement we resorted to recycling a marked up 2020 sign.

• The feminazis have had billboards up since spring decrying some evil men legislators and Supreme Court Justice May for protecting unborn baby girls.  Not in exactly those words but given the knowledge of the chromosomes of the baby in utero, girl  babies are more likely to be killed in sex selection abortion, which ironically feminazis are indifferent to. They just like bloody solutions to problem pregnancies. It is part of the right to choose the abortion promoters want to instill, any reason, any time, with your tax dollars.* There have been one or two poorly placed pro-life billboards to counteract the anti-life sentiment.
• As for broadcast media we do not listen to a lot of TV or streaming with commercials  so others will have a better take. Same for social media — we don’t go there but do monitor the national takes available through Twitchy. What we have seen locally saddens us as Democrats seem to be doing more.
• The music radio station that is on constantly at work, does not have near the number of political ads running as in 2022 when on that station and elsewhere Dems ran on abortion in just about every ad and Scott County and the state of Iowa saw a red wave which did not materialize elsewhere in the country. Dobbs was handed down in June of 2022.
• That said, while Scott County did very well for Republicans in 2022, Scott County is still usually Blue for the presidency which can have coattails depending on the work ethic of the R’s running.

0

0

YOU HAVE OUR PERMISSION TO BEGIN VOTING EARLY  IN PERSON THIS WEEK. DON’T FORGET TO VOTE TO RETAIN SUPREME COURT JUSTICE MAY ON THE BACK PAGE.

In a wider ranging series of questions from the North Scott Press (NSP) candidates for county office were also asked “Do you support your party’s presidential nominee?”

Sheriff candidate (and incumbent) Tim Lane is the only candidate for Scott County office running as a Republican to say he supports the Republican Party nominee for president, Donald Trump.

The others, Auditor candidate (incumbent) Kerri Tomkins, Supervisor candidate (incumbent) Ken Beck and Rita Rawson (incumbent by way of appointment after a controversial process) – all used ridiculous reasoning or evasion in refusing to answer. They seem to be playing chicken with party supporters.

We cannot have a Democrat sweep so we guess they expect Republicans to hold their noses and vote no matter how self-centered and injurious they are to the concept of party unity. 

The game two of them are playing could backfire as one of the independent candidates for Supervisor, Trever Goodall forthrightly indicated his support for Donald Trump and has positions compatible with good government. Normally we call for supporting the Republican candidate but when the office sought is not organized along party lines or certain of our candidates show little deference to party precepts as Beck and Tomkins did in their involvement with the appointment of Rawson, a very recent Democrat, passing over qualified Republicans, and then proceeding to undermine support for the Republican nominee for President chosen by Republicans in Scott County, in Iowa and overwhelmingly nationwide –  one is properly free to return the lack of favor.

Goodall indicated support for our nominee and offered answers to issues the Board of Supervisors deals with as Beck and Rawson offered.  Beck and Rawson have earned no deference. We can bullet vote Goodall or include one of the others to avoid the still worse ilk of the Democrat candidates.  With Tomkins there is no alternative other than a Democrat stooge.

The responses of the three Republican nominees  (set forth below) were weak and uncalled for and in violation of basic Republican standards of harmony and decorum and the ethics of craving support but refusing to give it.  The Scott County Republican Executive  Committee should have summoned them immediately and called them to task, in no uncertain terms to immediately revise and extend their remarks in service to party unity.  If the Scott County Republican Executive  Committee does not address this they prove themselves weak. They should tell the ingrates Beck, Rawson and Tompkins to reflect on the utter evils of the Democrat Party and justify their indifference and why Trump supporters should not be indifferent to them should they continue their disloyalty.

Anybody who reads our screeds in these pages knows that we are very critical of DJT and Trumpistas but we have a different role to play and it is in line with keeping the GOP conservative. We have never advocated not voting for Trump in the general or been indifferent to Democrats winning.

Indeed Trumpistas can blame themselves for Beck, Rawson and Tompkins. Trump supporters dominated the precinct caucuses and made much noise about their desire to hold the party fast  . . . but what do they do . . .  they don’t show up to vote in the primary election. If they did they were not paying very much attention. Beck, Rawson and Tomkins each had primary opponents who indicated support for Trump, even championed him.  Given the turnout, Trumpistas voting in the caucuses could have absolutely dominated the primaries but they did not or only spottily. And that was true statewide. Here the three indifferent county candidates won.

But alas the Democrats are members of the evil party and we are members of the stupid party, evidenced once again by the ingrates Beck, Rawson and Tompkins and the indifference shown by them toward other Republicans.  Well we do not have to be saddled with one of them or a Democrat. Voting for Goodall is some expiation. By their own standard the position is above party or something.

There is some risk in voting for an independent, Democrat Bribriesco is as lefty as they come, and is the only announced Democrat running who they will most likely bullet vote for. This leftist could get in unless she is number three (it is a vote for two election). She deserves to be number five of the five running.  That fault would extend from the lack of unity demonstrated by Beck, and Dawson toward Republicans. Being a Republican is of no import to them, if not in saying so in being consistent about it.

Seriously what kind of “Republican” can look at what is at stake in the presidential, who the Democrat candidate is and what that person stands for and be indifferent and not just merely say – of course I support my party’s nominee or even the self-centered ~~ I appreciate my party’s nominees?

The responses of all the candidates to the questions posed by the North Scott Press are available at:

https://www.northscottpress.com/stories/nsp-candidate-qa-legislative-and-scott-county-offices,169150

There may be a paywall.  You can subscribe to the NSP e-edition for one week for $3 or for a month for $6.

All candidates were asked by NSP: “Do you support your party’s presidential nominee?”

Tim Lane answered:

“I support Trump for President. When he was president, I supported his handling of the economy, foreign policy, and the First Step Act. He was very supportive of law enforcement, American businesses, and American Labor.”

That is a fine response that no one will be aghast at who would ever vote for a Republican in a presidential year. All that is required of party loyalty is ~~ I support the nominee of my party. — the following Republican candidates found that too  discomforting:

Kerri Tomkins answered:

“First, many brave men and women have died so I do not have to tell anyone how I vote or intend to vote. Second, I believe the right to vote is sacred and work hard every day to uphold that right in Scott County. In this position, I have a personal policy of not endorsing any candidates. The role of the auditor does not create policy. The job requires the position to follow the law. Therefore, if reelected, I will continue to uphold the Code of Iowa while performing the duties of auditor, regardless as to whom is elected President of the United State”

The first two sentences are pure claptrap.  As to the next two sentences of her statement: ~~ A policy of not endorsing any candidates and ~~ the role of auditor does not create policy.  They should be read together.  Executive positions of course create policy within their departments and recommend policy for enactment by legislative bodies. Apropos the Auditors position, is Tompkins  saying she has nothing to say about laws affecting the integrity of the vote and will not be an advocate for policies that improve the integrity of the vote within her department or from the legislature?  Somebody should clue her in that that is what executives do. Is she saying she will remain blind and unresponsive and not be an advocate for policies that are ineffective at insuring the integrity of the vote? Her response is incredible.

The Republican Party and its various candidates have positions that advocate for insuring the integrity of the vote. She should not be indifferent to improvement,  complacent about what is problematic,  or neutral on party positions or their candidates in furtherance of insuring the integrity of the vote.

Furthermore she is running in a partisan position. She craved party endorsement — she chose not to run for the Democrat nomination or as an independent. She was given the Republican nomination based on assumptions about strength of adherence to integrity of the vote and the appropriateness of advocacy.  By her limited formulation of the position we should just have a CPA firm run the electoral aspects. Accordingly she would not be hired.

A CPA firm worth its salt would look at the chain of custody protocols the actuality of the verification of the vote and tell their client changes need to be made to insure accuracy of eligibility and more. Yet CPA’s have run in the past and been passed over because it is a partisan position that involves policy.  Auditors most certainly should engage in policy recommendatiuons and voters should know what they are.   You can have good partisan originated policy positions or bad ones.  The Republican positions are good, Democrats bad.  It is not hard. Consider her opponents statements on his website:

The right to vote should be sacred and accessible – Iowa Republicans feel otherwise! Let’s make Iowa the great state it used to be.(Ed Note: as in “blue”)

This right is under threat under the current leadership by their actions to not protect the voters and elections. (Ed note apparently their oare partisan policy differences)

All code words against Republicans existing policy even with all its weaknesses. Tomkins in trying to escape responsibility by denying  the appropriateness of policy recommendations, implementation, and endorsing of candidates that support them.

It should also be understood that in spite of her denial of policy involvement the Auditor is a member of the  Scott County Executive Board of Supervisors Vacancy Committee. That group fills political vacancies within the Board of Supervisors, also a distinctive policy position. So how are citizens to evaluate her predilections about policy and people to fill such a role unless she owns up?

Tomkins was involved in the selection of Rawson to fill the term left open by Tony Knobe after his move to become County Treasurer. Did she not evaluate Rawson and other candidates’ policy positions? As it turns out her policy like Beck’s and Rawson’s — are hidden from public view, as to who they passed over.

Tomkins must think the position is above politics, if that is the case she should run as an independent and pursue making the position non-partisan in which case she would be part of moving Scott County on to being another Davenport City Council — and we all know how effective and scandal free that has been.

Tomkin’s last two sentences are just more claptrap.

Ken Beck answered:

“I encourage everyone to do their own research to determine who the best candidate is; however, local elections make the biggest impact on Scott County residents. I will continue to remain open to all ideas, and make my decisions based on what will best serve the majority of Scott County residents.”

The question was asked because it says something about you, your predilections on matters that come under the purview of your role in government,  which is actually quite broad-based under Iowa’s home rule provisions. The question cuts to the quick of why Trump supporters should vote for you, do you appreciate his platform or object to it?

You are running for a partisan position. Do you appreciate the Party nominees over Democrats or not?

Rita Rawson answered:

“This is an unethical and inappropriate question as it undermines our system of voting rights and confidentiality and has nothing to do with the Board of Supervisor position.”

What absolute nonsense calumny really. Again as above, the question was asked because it says something about you, your predilections on matters that come under the purview of your role in government,  which is actually quite broad-based under Iowa’s home rule provisions. The question is important because it cuts to the quick of why Trump supporters should vote for you, do you appreciate his platform or object to it?

You are running for a partisan position. Do you appreciate the Party nominees over Democrats or not?

All should feel an obligation to vote and to pick best among the sinners because we all are. VERITASPAC.com hereby “authorizes” people to vote early beginning this week if done in person.  Vote by mail should only be done by actual out-of-towners and the physically unable. We of course will continue the most secure way of voting in person on Election Day where we will present a valid ID,  offer a signature sample, and have our vote recorded instantly instead of having it lay around for however long. Previous generations voted essentially only on Election Day and did so at a rate higher than we see today. Showing a little of their pluck honors them, the franchise, and is superior as to fraud prevention and is a better good government approach at least compared to voting weeks early.

0

0

Have a personal goal of inducing two low propensity voters to vote straight Republican (an exception being the Scott County Supervisor race where one of  the no-party candidates is superior)*

Based on recent articles at The Federalist’s  regarding current get out the vote (GOTV) efforts, it appears that so-called  relational vote chasing done by groups outside the Trump or GOP apparat, presumably single issue oriented or broader affinity groups, are the most effective.  See here, here. We support that to the extent that they can engage their hills the mountain will take care of itself.

Two reports here and here  albeit a few months ago  indicate that the Trump/GOP GOTV operation has fallen flat. However much heralded it was, falling flat is something we presumed would result if resources are devoted to expensive paid hectoring to vote by mail instead of intense motivational and targeted messaging which we would argue is a better bang for the buck — turning even Democrat mules (unknowingly) into mules for Trump AND OTHER REPUBLICANS (presuming ballot secrecy is maintained). Our point is most effective if conducted beginning in the spring and summer in order to inoculate the vote. 

Using “doable” small group contact dynamics (using volunteers given 20 names) described in various The Federalist articles keeps the cost down. The focus on low to medium propensity voters is good although the persuadable factor might be an issue  as the candidate the system is focused on (trump) undercuts the message for some otherwise likely affinity groups (pro-life and social conservatives)  with boneheaded statements complicating the task of the volunteers  engaged in promoting early voting. 

Republicans used to emphasize voter ID in order to vote. That does not happen with vote by mail which the apparat now officially advocates. Who really votes the mailed in vote? Signature verification to be accurate is a slow process that for serious accuracy requires training. It elicits false flags when it is undertaken, which is not seriously.

But the everyone-vote-early-drone from conservative radio commentariat is in full swing and arguably against integrity and security interests to the extent it involves vote by mail, which they now champion, glossing over still valid concerns about not only the security and but also importantly the general good governance propriety. 

Is this the goal, be more like Democrats?

The same arguments apply to hectoring people to vote by mail even if undertaken by a volunteer focused on a small group of assigned contacts — the twenty or so small bite often mentioned. The cumulative effect of vote by mail weeks out is still anti-good-governance and burdens the accuracy of the verification process in the limited counting period because of the inundation of mail-in ballots. Eligibility establishment is not as effectively challengeable on a timely basis by poll officials and watchers . . .  as to verification of the actual voter in a vote by mail dominated system, forget it,  . . .  signature verification — get real.  

much better

The basic idea of personal voter contact is great, but pushing vote by mail (in most jurisdictions) needn’t be part of it, assuming early voting in person at satellite locations is available. You want intimacy —  so offer to drive them or walk them to the early voting location. It is also more psychologically and civically engaging.

 It would seem to be eminently doable for this small-group dynamic of GOTV. A cadre of volunteer drivers might be organized to supplement any unavailability of the voter persuader to do so.  Many or most will not require the chauffeuring but it is a nice no- excuses touch having set a pick-up time. 

Some insist that a good overall turn-out by people voting in person is not realistic. Well do explain how turnout of eligible voters in the 60s and 70s was superior to recent years when the voting window was essentially Election Day (very limited absentee voting)?  Today many or most jurisdictions have satellite in person early voting   capabilities and independent transportation availability is superior.

That the “client’ voter votes early in person on their own is just as determinable as if they voted early by mail or used a drop box for their “absentee ballot”. 

Voting in person a little early — a few days — ameliorates the integrity concerns of onesey-twosey falsifications and intimidation around the kitchen table  and insures, to the extent the local system requires, photo -ID verification – not available in vote by mail schemes. Further signature verification is more secure as it is immediately witnessed.  

The arguments I hear expressed for vote by mail is that the Dems are going to mess up election day voting — create long lines, have computers fail etc etc. . . . create chaos — (one good conspiracy theory deserves another ) therefor I guess submit your vote to those malcontents through the postal union as soon as possible, or to have lying around in the same jurisdiction that is crooked enough to do the aforementioned and have them organize the counting and verification, after that know what precincts are voting. 

Then there is THE WEATHER AND YOU MIGHT DIE OR BREAK YOUR LEG OR YOUR CAT MIGHT BE UP A TREE  . . .  WHATEVER argument. None of them are serious or statistically hold water as preventative. If one is truly concerned vote a day or two early but  in person.  If you are too incapacitated or out of town for weeks on end vote by mail as was done in the past. Integrity, security, events of the day, in reality, speak against extensive vote by mail programs. A controlling conspiratorial fear that Democrats will subvert election day voting only means that as regards the vote by mail scenario one prefers letting one’s vote lay around perhaps for weeks, — after submitting same to a postal union apparat, help Democrats be in a position to respond to early turnout results and concentrate localized efforts — all by the same disreputable people who if they have intent and the capability to corrupt or interfere with Election Day voting  have the means to corrupt your vote by mail integrity as well.

*details to follow

0

0

Regarding Melania– the book jacket is as stark and cold as the insides

This election presents troubling but still crucial differences for the pro-life cause (they are as black and white as Melania’s book cover).  The way Donald Trump has treated the issue of late means right to life  voters need to relate more to voting for political party dominance than being wound up in presidential proclivities. That is as it should be.

But the 2024 presidential choices are crucial and essentially binary as a chasm remains on important matters between Trump and Harris along with the Republican Party and Democrats. The differences in both binaries remain compelling for pro-lifers.

That said, it is still important to make admissions about Trump to maintain the integrity of the cause. And that means being critical of him and now his wife who has perhaps made the most egregious anti-right-to-life statement regarding abortion of any First Lady or prospective First Lady in my decades of observation. Even Hillary Clinton arguably fudged the issue better.

The independent worth of human beings in utero, a stage of human life we all went through, does not figure into Melania Trump’s view of the matter of the right to life of the unborn — only the autonomy of the woman and never mind that half the babies killed are female. Relying on  book excerpts regarding her absolutist philosophy as regards the inherent  “right” of a woman to end her pregnancy at any stage,  the life of the unborn child she carries is not controlling or modifying. She does not specify any appropriate legal distinction.

So the record is safe with Melania, we have never had a Republican pro-life First Lady. Indeed she has set herself as being as bad in principle as any Democrat First Lady. And to think I once thought maybe she was keeping Donald in line on the matter. What a fool I can be in desperation to avoid the utter evil of Democrats. At least Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush and Laura Bush stifled themselves as a matter of political timing and I do not recall that any of them made such a staggering (as reported about Melania) absolute statement about ones responsibility to the life a woman carries. It is now apparent that my allowing for the few accoutrements of Catholicism Melania displayed early on in Trump’s term as perhaps indicative of something positive was as ridiculous as others allowing it for Joe Biden.

According to reports (we have not seen her book) the formally sphinx-like Melania has gone all chatty-cathy and can’t be stark enough in her position alleging her and every woman’s absolute autonomy as regards abortion. God’s will is irrelevant, human will is everything. Never mind the symbiosis of mother and child or the importance to every successful human culture of the elevation of the bond of protection by mothers to their offspring. When that is lost, all is lost.

Quite the Catholic/ Christian theorist Melania turns out to be. For her the unborn are a disposable entity and that belly-button (and a lot more) she was so proud to display at the drop of however many dollars is meaningless to her, or she does not have the depth to contemplate it.  No Biblical or cultural or democratically established legal framework should allow protection of the unborn human being’s autonomy if their presence in any way conflicts with her chosen or revised autonomy. Apparently they are to be considered invaders, non-innocent, disposable.  Or you can consider them children but you still get to dispose off them if they reside in utero. Autonomy is absolute.  At least illegal immigrants are to be provided  orderly, timely, presumably still life-affirming deportation (in the case of the unborn referred to as birth).

Melania Trump’s two demential orientation explains a lot about her demeanor. But we are not voting for her.

The moral and philosophical depth of the former President (and given the alternative, we  hope future) and his spouse on the matter of abortion ranges from seat of the pants, to manipulation, to capitulation, to do the right thing (although DJT didn’t really personally pick the SCOTUS nominees), to fear and loathing, to abortion sympathy, to protecting some babies and the ability to protect more, to advocacy for one seriously warped philosophical view now put in print by Melania.

One more thought as regards the latter, if bodily autonomy as regards parenthood is Melania’s conceptual framework then her book should contain a paragraph or two on why men should not have to pay child support if they do not want to. Certainly the fruits of their current and future labors are confiscated by law for 18 years at a minimum. What is the scalar or even conceptual difference, other than men do not get to legally kill their kids as a matter of autonomy? Well they used to, it was called paterfamilias, we just are now substituting materfamilias abandoning the Christian teaching of the unique worth (and protect-ability) of every human being, –autonomy for all not just the dominant.

Oh well, DJT is our guy, and he really must be because the choice is essentially binary and he has good (we assume solid) positions on other important matters without getting into a discussion of the scale with regard to the right to life but definitively as regards the ability of the republic to survive. And the Democrats are just utterly dependably evil — far beyond Trump’s apostasies, inconsistencies, insincerities, stupidity, superficialities, volatility and incoherencies. But let’s not be naive. Those are arguably Trump’s good features in the scheme of things as they at least intermittently, arguably predominantly, work in support of culture and the ability to redress grievances. Democrats are methodically anti-culture, essentially Marxist.

I fear (but have hope to the contrary) that what we are seeing on the issue from Trump may be more substantive than political winks and nods, game playing, get through the election maneuverings on what they consider a handicapping position on the right to life. Trump has so aggravated the issue by being so inarticulate or worse I can believe he was never with us, he just picked some pro-life people to ride with him. All credit to them, not so much Trump. Regrettably the coincidence of pro-life people in his administration in the past can now be seen as expendable for the greater cause of Donald Trump. He hires on whims and fires as needed, it is his way. So the big question becomes who is going to have his ear?

We should push back on Trump’s unnecessary personal and political stupidity and abandonment of those that helped bring him. Pro-lifers voted for him in the various primaries because he talked the talk and surrounded himself with genuine pro-life personages. He read the room. Trump would have placed much more distant in Iowa and subsequent early states in 2016 had he advocated for no federal laws to protect the unborn and excoriated state laws as he has done.

Certainly Trump was not unique on the immigration issue and border security or America first.   In a very crowded field in 2016 the showman’s bombast seemed refreshing and “real” (not all proved real) and attracted media and a very fed up majority of TEA Party folks that came to dominate the Party. Something that predated Trump.

The media buoyed him early on for their own insincere purposes presuming he would be easily destroyed by Hillary. They did not underestimate Trump, as he was often his own worst enemy, they underestimated the strength of TEA party like sentiments outside the Republican Party after the nomination and the disdain for Hillary by men and women.

Trump decided he needed to be “pro-life” and up to 2020 as far as people knew he kept his word on justices (Roe had not been overturned by 2020) and demonstrably on executive policy. However Barrett and Kavanaugh are not prizes of the caliber of Thomas or Alito who the Bush presidencies brought. On that basis alone Trump is arguably not the most pro-life president as both have been problematic on other key constitutional matters including government influence over the internet, corrupting the availability to promulgate our message.

Certainly Ronald Reagan was far more articulate and insightful. And previous Republican presidents had a less socially conservative Republican Party to deal with. But again so as to be abundantly clear a Republican as president now, for a variety of reasons, will be vastly superior to a Democrat for the right to life /pro-life cause.

Trump’s most recent repeated “promise”  essentially to veto any federal effort to protect unborn human life if it portends to disallow elective abortions (he has managed to forget or make his 20 weeks concept murky in spite of the platform) is really a conceptual piece of work from this “most pro-life president ever”. He couldn’t formulate a more artful political statement than that? Maybe it is just a gratuitous statement to an unlikely possibility (in no small part thanks to him). But so much of what he says on the issue is ignorant, oblivious, insulting to his allies and wrong (but not always). Trump made his veto statement in spite of “his’ gobbled-gook platform plank which declares that the 14th Amendment (an imposition on the states) guarantees that no person can be denied Life or Liberty without Due Process in the United States.

Trump remains fearful and shallow on the issue and constitutionally ignorant. He wanted to keep the issue totally out of the 2024 platform having previously run with, even if not exactly ON a pro-life platform (not merely a states rights platform), winning in 2016 and arguably in 2020. He could have uncomplicated social-conservative and pro-life support by allowing more input and positive pro-life / pro-family planks and maintain whatever demurral he felt necessary. His shallowness and even obtusness is evidenced by HIS 2024 platform (previous platforms were genuinely democratic) where he invokes the 14th amendment to sustain a state’s rights view. It is incredibly goofy.

Accordingly pro-lifers shouldn’t act like the Amen Corner as regards Trump. We need to have the Party and the Congress. Trump’s supposed position on federal money for abortion (he says he still  opposes it oblivious to what he proposes as regards IVF) really does not matter as much if Congress does not appropriate it anyway. Nor does his position championing IVF if Congress does not pay for it although too many Republicans appear to be on board.

In that regard we must not be silent that as IVF is practiced it is essentially a process of create-inspect-and selectively destroy new human life as if we are demi-gods and prospective parents are entitled to use whatever means they want to obtain parenthood and the supposedly perfect child while abandoning or destroy the others.

The history of this human epoch is being written in terms of biology and the cultural transmission of biomedical ethics. Pro-life may be just on hold with Trump, but with him we can pray we are on a slower track to inculcation of abortion and the diminution of life in utero or however conceived. Trump’s latest personal position in essence advocating for the legality of most abortions at the federal level and gratuitously personally opposing efforts to limit most of them at the state level through his statements that this or that limit is “too far” give cause for worry about him. It gives cause to oppose his protégé Vance in 2028 for being such a dishrag however ambitious. He has done his record, the cause and his faith wrong with his statements and formulations. He is less discombobulated as a speaker than Trump.

But, and I cannot emphasize it enough, we know where the Democrats are coming from and they must be opposed. The Democrats are the Party of Abortion. It is their third rail and imbues everything they do, domestically and in foreign policy. Trump is not that.

In summation as regards pro-lifers criticizing the Trumps — Donald and Melania deserve it on the matter of the autonomous right to life for all human beings not just women. The right exists for all and from the very beginning, at the spark of each unique new human life. How politically practical it is to obtain it in the short term is a proper question but the abandonment and criticism of the idea and its adherents is weak and unnecessary.

Trump is fearful of pro-abortion sentiment (misreading saliency and accuracy of polls — the bias of the questions and the respondents chosen). He should be fearful of pro-life sentiment aggravated by his boneheaded statements. But it is what it is and Trump is who he is. It is fine for now to use him to get the superior results we need. That is the extent of my support because there are other American Presidents and citizens to admire more for courage and articulation and devotion to important values. His resiliency was remarkable two months ago after Butler but not sanctifying and pro-lifers should not assume him protected by God in all he says and does.

As of today Trump in essence says he opposes any serious curtailment of legal abortion even at the state level, the latter at least personally. And the sad thing is Trump and his pathetic apparat expect us to uncritically support him no matter what he says or however many times he says one thing and then something contradictory, or insults us.

My four main points are intended to be — Integrity demands we should be critical of Trump (while we absolutely need to be critical of Democrats’ utter evil, that they ought to be anathema). Secondly we should not give all the oxygen to Trump and put all our eggs in his basket but take the initiative for the independence and critical importance of a conservative Republican Party and Congress. Thirdly, do not absolutely trust Trump one statement to the next — press and verify. And fourthly, yes vote for him and encourage others to do so as the alternative is incompatible with the survival of the republic (a matter of Democrats being so bad, not Trump being so good).

Further, Trump is not a Biblical character protected by the hand of God anymore than other presidential aspirants, in the last hundred and sixty years anyway. And by the way, vote in person even if a (very) few days early at a satellite location as security and integrity is far superior in that mode than the fraud enabling atrocity of vote by mail — referencing another Trumpian mixed-message flip-flop against interests.

Related links (to be supplemented

https://downloads.frcaction.org/EF/EF18H05.pdf

https://sbaprolife.org/newsroom/press-releases/debate-night-trump-is-right-harris-walz-would-leave-babies-to-die

https://sbaprolife.org/newsroom/press-releases/injustice-pro-abortion-misinformation-leads-to-two-womens-deaths

https://www.liveaction.org/pro-life-activists-protest-culture-of-death-at-democratic-national-convention/

0

0