Voters’ verdict explodes 5 Democratic myths

Voters’ verdict explodes 5 Democratic myths

BY BYRON YORK | NOVEMBER 5, 2014 | 8:30 AM

 MYTHS
 As Democratic losses mounted in Senate races across the country on election night, some liberal commentators clung to the idea that dissatisfied voters were sending a generally anti-incumbent message, and not specifically repudiating Democratic officeholders. But the facts of the election just don’t support that story.

Voters replaced Democratic senators with Republicans in Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina, Montana, South Dakota, West Virginia and likely in Alaska, and appear on track to do so in a runoff next month in Louisiana. At the same time, voters kept Republicans in GOP seats in heavily contested races in Georgia, Kansas and Kentucky. That is at least 10, and as many as a dozen, tough races, without a single Republican seat changing hands. Tuesday’s voting was a wave alright — a very anti-Democratic wave.

1) The election wouldn’t be a referendum on President Obama. “Barack Obama was on the ballot in 2012 and in 2008,” Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said in late October. “The candidates that are on the ballot are Democratic and Republican candidates for Congress.” Of course, that was true, but Republicans from New Hampshire to Alaska worked tirelessly to put the president figuratively on the ballot. And they succeeded.

Every day on the stump, Republican candidates pressed the point that their Democratic opponents voted for the Obama agenda nearly all the time. “Kay Hagan has voted for President Obama’s failed partisan agenda 95 percent of the time,” said Thom Tillis, who defeated the incumbent Democrat in North Carolina. Mark Pryor “votes with Barack Obama 93 percent of the time,” said Tom Cotton, who defeated the incumbent Democrat in Arkansas. “Mark Udall has voted with [Obama] 99 percent of the time,” said Cory Gardner, who defeated the incumbent Democrat in Colorado.

On Election Day, nearly 60 percent of voters told exit pollsters they were dissatisfied or angry with the Obama administration. In retrospect, there was no more effective campaign strategy for Republicans running in 2014 than to tie an opponent to the president.

Obamacare poison

2) Obamacare wouldn’t matter. Many Democrats and their liberal supporters in the press believed that the president’s healthcare plan, a year into implementation, would not be a major factor in the midterms. But Republican candidates ignored the liberal pundits and pounded away on Obamacare anyway — and it contributed to their success.

“In our polling, [Obamacare] continues to be just as hot as it’s been all year long,” said a source in the campaign of Tom Cotton, who won a Senate seat handily in Arkansas, in an interview about ten days before the election. “If you look at a word cloud of voters’ biggest hesitation in voting for Mark Pryor, the two biggest words are ‘Obama’ and ‘Obamacare.’ Everything after that is almost an afterthought.” Other winning GOP candidates pushed hard on Obamacare, too. Tillis in North Carolina, Gardner in Colorado, Joni Ernst in Iowa, and several others made opposition to Obamacare a central part of their campaigns.

harry

3) An improving economy would limit Democrats’ losses. In the few places he felt confident and welcome enough to campaign, Obama devoted much of his appeal to citing the economic progress his administration has made: jobs created, growth, healthcare costs, corporate regulation.

The election results were pretty definitive proof that voters are not feeling the progress Obama feels has been made. Most importantly, it is an unhappy fact that a significant part of the decline in the unemployment rate under Obama has been the result of discouraged workers giving up the search for employment altogether. Indeed, in exit polls, nearly 70 percent of voters expressed negative feelings about the economy, many years into the Obama recovery.

republican-senator-joni-ernst

4) Women would save Democrats. There were times when the midterm Senate campaigns seemed entirely devoted to seeking the approval of women voters. The Udall campaign in Colorado was almost a parody of such an appeal to women, focusing so extensively on contraception and abortion that the Denver Post called it an “obnoxious one-issue campaign.”

Beyond Udall, most Democrats hoped a gender gap would boost them to victory. As it turned out, there was a gender gap in Tuesday’s voting, but it favored Republicans. Exit polls showed that Democrats won women by seven points, while Republicans won men by 13 points. The numbers are definitive proof that, contrary to much conventional wisdom, Democrats have a bigger gender gap problem than the GOP. The elections showed precisely the opposite of what Democrats hoped they would.

Landrieu

5) The ground game would power Democrats to victory. When all else failed — and all else seemed to fail in the campaign’s final days — Democrats believed that a superior ability to get voters to the polls would be their margin of victory, or at the very least would limit Democratic losses. After all, the Obama campaigns of 2008 and 2012 had run rings around Republicans in voter contact and get-out-the-vote technology.

It didn’t turn out that way. Republicans had upped their game; the party invested millions in an improved turnout machine, and it appears to have passed its first test. At the same time, Democrats failed to conjure that 2008 and 2012 turnout magic in 2014. “The Obama coalition that propelled the president to two victories remained cohesive, drawing on minorities, younger voters as well as women,” the Wall Street Journal reported. “But Democratic efforts to boost turnout among younger and minority voters fell short.”

repudiation

Perhaps most importantly, Democrats learned that a solid turnout effort could not overcome the drag of Obama, Obamacare, the economy, and a generalized unhappiness with the state of the country under the Obama administration.

In the end, Tuesday’s vote represented a repudiation of virtually every notion Democrats embraced in recent weeks as they tried to disregard the growing evidence that they were headed for a historic defeat. Now, the vote is in, and the voters’ message can no longer be discounted.

Will speaking out against the Obama administration close the door to soul winning with youth?

blog on youth copy

Will speaking out against the Obama administration close the door to soul winning with youth?

By Mario Murillo

Exhibit one: Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich resigned under pressure from the nonprofit organization that makes the popular Firefox web browser because he does supports traditional marriage.

Ironically Mozilla’s creed says “Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness,” the statement goes on. “We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all.” But the company is plainly taking the position that it won’t employ, in leadership positions, anyone who publicly holds orthodox Christian or Muslim views on gay marriage.

449w

Here is a chilling moment: Mr. Eich was recently given the chance to repudiate his belief in traditional marriage in a setting reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition and refused to do so.

Andrew Sullivan’s the noted gay blogger said about Mozilla firing Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich  “Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out.”

This intolerant behavior by Mozilla is straight out of the Obama playbook and that fact is not lost on our young.

 

 

Exhibit two: Rand Paul gets standing ovation in Berkeley.

BERKELEY, Calif. — delivering a rare speech for a Republican at this bastion of liberalism, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul on Wednesday was given multiple standing ovations by the left-wing audience after railing against government surveillance and warning the students: “Your right to privacy is under assault.”

“I am here to tell you that if you own a cell phone, you’re under surveillance,” he told the crowd.- Politico.

rand-paul

Exhibit three: Youth turn on Obama.

The Boston Globe said, “Domestic spying by the government, the technological incompetence demonstrated in the launch of the Obama health care marketplace, the continued weakness in the economy — all have conspired to undermine Democrats’ big advantage among young voters, ages 18 to 29, according to specialists.

In a detailed, national poll released last month by Harvard’s Institute of Politics, nearly half of young voters said they would recall President Obama if they could. Only 41 percent approved of the job Obama was doing, an 11-point drop from six months earlier.”

Obama and his cronies have overplayed their hand with youth.  The wreckage of his administration, the cruelty of his actions toward his political enemies and his arrogant spending are now painfully clear to youth in America.

souls in San Jose

I am convinced that Ministers who soft peddle the Gospel and appear to be compliant with the government will lose credibility with American youth.

It sounds hip and cool to stay out of the fray but the thing that youth are going to remember about those preachers is that they sat silently as Obama washed their future down the drain.

The key is to preach against the administration in the context of a larger vision for America and the promise of a future in Christ. We are not to preach a right wing message but we can condemn the violation of the American constitution and the oppression of individual rights.  Calling Obama into account will not close the door to youth; in this case, I believe it will open it.

NSA Weighs Retaining Data for Suits: Would Lead to Expansion of Controversial Phone Program

U.S. NEWS

NSA Weighs Retaining Data for Suits

Rule That Evidence Can’t Be Destroyed Would Lead to Expansion of Controversial Phone Program

  • By  DEVLIN BARRETT and  SIOBHAN GORMAN
Feb. 19, 2014 7:32 p.m. ET

Sen. Rand Paul, shown earlier this month, is one of a number of people suing the government to stop NSA surveillance of U.S. phone records. Getty Images

WASHINGTON—The government is considering enlarging the National Security Agency’s controversial collection of Americans’ phone records—an unintended consequence of lawsuits seeking to stop the surveillance program, according to officials.

A number of government lawyers involved in lawsuits over the NSA phone-records program believe federal-court rules on preserving evidence related to lawsuits require the agency to stop routinely destroying older phone records, according to people familiar with the discussions. As a result, the government would expand the database beyond its original intent, at least while the lawsuits are active.

No final decision has been made to preserve the data, officials said, and one official said that even if a decision is made to retain the information, it would be held only for the purpose of litigation and not be subject to searches. The government currently collects phone records on millions of Americans in a vast database that it can mine for links to terror suspects. The database includes records of who called whom, when they called and for how long.

President Barack Obama has ordered senior officials to end the government storage of such data and find another place to store the records—possibly with the phone companies who log the calls. Under the goals outlined by Mr. Obama last month, the government would still be able to search the call logs with a court order, but would no longer possess and control them.

National Security Agency Director Keith Alexander has said the program, if it had existed in 2001, would have uncovered the Sept. 11 plot. Critics of the program, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, have sued the government, saying the program violates the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches.

Patrick Toomey, an ACLU lawyer, said no one in the government has raised with his group the possibility the lawsuits may actually expand the database they call unconstitutional. “It’s difficult to understand why the government would consider taking this position, when the relief we’ve requested in the lawsuit is a purge of our data,” he said.

Cindy Cohn, legal director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which also is suing over the program, said the government should save the phone records, as long as they aren’t still searchable under the program. “If they’re destroying evidence, that would be a crime,” she said.

Ms. Cohn also questioned why the government was only now considering this move, even though the EFF filed a lawsuit over NSA data collection in 2008.

In that case, a judge ordered evidence preserved related to claims brought by AT&T Inc.T +0.09% customers. What the government is considering now is far broader.

“I think they’re looking for any way to throw rocks at the litigation,” added Ms. Cohn. “To the extent this is a serious concern, we should have had this discussion in 2008.”

Another person who has filed a class-action suit over the program is Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.). Mr. Paul’s lawyer, former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, called the approach under consideration “just silly.” He said he was sure his clients would be happy to agree to the destruction of their phone records held by the government, without demanding those records in pretrial discovery.

Federal courts have ruled that defendants in lawsuits cannot destroy relevant evidence that could be useful to the other side. Generally, those involved in lawsuits are expected to preserve records, including electronic records, that could reasonably be considered relevant or likely to be requested as part of pretrial discovery.

As the NSA program currently works, the database holds about five years of data, according to officials and some declassified court opinions. About twice a year, any call record more than five years old is purged from the system, officials said.

A particular concern, according to one official, is that the older records may give certain parties legal standing to pursue their cases, and that deleting the data could erase evidence that the phone records of those individuals or groups were swept up in the data dragnet.

The phone records program is overseen by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and any move to keep data past the five-year period may require the blessing of that court.

If the records are retained, they may remain in government computers for some time, because it could take years to resolve the spate of litigation over the programs. A federal judge in New York has ruled the program is legal, while a Washington, D.C., judge has ruled it almost certainly isn’t. There are several other pending cases, and other lawsuits could yet be filed.

Government retention of old records has long been a major concern for civil-liberties groups. The ACLU, in particular, has argued the longer the government holds data about citizens, the deeper investigators can delve into the private lives of individuals, and errors or abuses become more likely.