Why the PA Primary was disappointing

[Wayne Klinger]

My newest blog on PSC that explains it all.

http://www.projectshiningcity.org/fp359.php

[Peter Trippett]

Although I was disappointed in some of the outcomes, I disagree with part of this analysis of the Primary Election. This article claims that we failed to oust those who voted for the Healthcare bill. But, those were Democrats! Very few Tea Party/9-12 People would be voting in Democrat Primaries, and therefore, the Primary was not the election that was likely to get rid of such people.

Also, although I am glad to see Arlen Specter go, again, that cannot be counted as a success for Tea Party groups, for the very same reason. In my opinion, Arlen did that to himself!

We will see what happens in November. But, this article is correct in other areas. We did not do a good job of supporting Freedom-loving candidates in this election. I caution anyone reading this, that unless we reconsider some of our strategies, we will not have many successes this fall!

I spoke to Sam Rohrer's wife, when Sam was here in State College, a couple of weeks prior to the election. She told me that Sam was hoping to get more support from Tea Party and 9/12 groups, but that such support did not materialize. She found that a majority of groups in this state had a policy, like ours, of not endorsing candidates.

If you look at states where groups like ours have been successful in getting rid of bad Republican candidates, or in getting Constitutional candidates elected, those groups have had no reservations about making their opinions known publicly. I will point out that I am criticizing myself here, as I have been supportive of our policy of not endorsing candidates. Now, I believe that policy has tied our hands.

We must improve in these areas:

1) We need to get our membership more involved in the political process. A quick analysis of election returns shows that at polls where we had people, the candidates we supported did better.

2) We must actively seek out candidates, by getting in contact with them early in the election cycle, rather than waiting for them to come to us. We were not excited by Sam Rohrer when people came into our area from his campaign, but many of us did start supporting him (individually) when we met him personally.

3) We should change our policy of not endorsing candidates, and come up with a system for rating candidates on their understanding and support of the Constitution. Then, we should endorse and actively support candidates who get a high rating.

4) We must reach out to those that won this Primary, and start educating them about the Constitutional principles we expect them to support, if they want us to support them.

Many of our group's efforts are focused on educating people about our rights, our freedom and our own responsibility and power to defend them. I continue to think these things are extremely important and we will continue to do so. But, we should not ignore the political process. Electing candidates who support the Constitution is another way to defend our freedom.

Our strength comes from the fact that we are one of thousands of small organizations, spread out all across the country. If you consider yourself a member of our group, please help us, by becoming more involved! Get your friends and neighbors to start coming to our meetings, and ask us what you can do to help!

If you do not, if we fail to win victories in November, then the press will be justified in writing stories about how ineffective we are!

[Wayne Klinger]

Yes, they were Democrats and yes it's an analysis but at the same time if one or two got voted out, it would've sent an even bigger message in PA besides the Specter unraveling. This just proves these areas are heavily Democratic and we have a steep hill to climb to vote any of these 9 out, even if it's 4 or 5. I do agree with your rating system and the going to the candidates instead of them seeking us out. I think Madeira got his signs and materials out too late for one ( I understand it was all grassroots money to begin with and that costed him in a sense) as they called me like 7 days before the elections to go sign posting....I was doing Rohrer's way back in late March. Madeira's campaign reminded a bit of Fred Thompson's back in '08...he would've been great if they were a bit sooner but it just didn't unfold that way unfortunately.

Yeah, the press and the ineffectiveness of the Tea Party...they want that...ohhhh so bad! Reason why they clinged onto this Critz nonsense despite the scales being heavily stacked in the Johnstown area.

[Peter Trippett]

My main point of disagreement was the implication that it was a failure of Freedom-loving groups that 9 Democrats who supported Tyrannical Healthcare were not voted out. If you had asked me a month ago, if we would eliminate those Democrats in the Primary, I would have said "no", because the majority of our people would not be voting on the Democrat ballot.

Also, if you look at the numbers, I don't think things are so grim. First of all, 6 of the 9 Democrats on your list were running un-opposed in their own party. So, of course they would appear to have a "landslide" victory, because they got 100% of the vote. But, any Democrats who went out to vote in those districts were presented with only one choice on the ballot, so it is hard to say whether any of them are strongly opposed to the healthcare laws or not.

Brady, Fattah, and Schwartz are all in districts covering Philadelphia. In fact, apparently no Republican at all even bothered to run in Brady's district. And, Doyle is in Pittsburgh. Of course, the people in these collectivist cities all support stealing money from others to pay for their healthcare, and we are unlikely to be able to do anything about these four.

But, I see many vulnerabilities...

Chris Carney was unopposed in his district. He got 38615 votes. The Republicans in that district split up the vote, but a total of 59279 Republicans came out to vote!

Dahlkemper got 34637 votes. His opponent got 12698. And, 54345 Republicans came out to vote.

Patrick Murphy, unopposed, got 40708 votes. 43825 Republicans voted in his district.

Kanjorsky got 33783 votes. His 2 Democrat opponents got a total of 34748 votes. That means that a majority of Democrats voting actually opposed Kanjorsky. 28311 Republicans came out to vote.

Finally, Sestak did not run for the house, since he is now running for Senate. If Toomey beats him, then he will be eliminated. In Sestak's district the Democrat, Lentz, was unopposed, and got 38557 votes. 47801 Republicans voted in that district.

I know that it is hard to project these results to the General Election, but if all of the percentages persist into the General Election, and if independent voters come out against Tyrannical Healthcare, and if you assume that some percentage of Democrats who voted on Ballots where there was only one choice are actually opposed to Tyrannical Healthcare, then I would say these 5 districts are vulnerable.

So, let us not give up, and work hard to take these 5 districts. That will send a message!

But, even if it turns out, in the end, that we don't win these elections, we must continue to pursue other methods, provided in the Constitution, to protect our freedom. The purpose of our Republic is to protect the minority from a majority who want to take away their rights and their freedom!