Marco Rubio, desperate to save his presidential campaign in his home state, is adopting the Mitt Romney strategy – asking Republicans hoping to stop Donald Trump to support his rival, John Kasich, in Ohio.
“John Kasich is the only one who can beat Donald Trump in Ohio,” Rubio said. “If a voter in Ohio is motivated by stopping Donald Trump, I suspect that’s the only choice they can make.”
The flip-side of that strategic gambit is to convince any voters in Florida not backing Trump to support him in Tuesday’s primary.
“I’m the only one who can beat Trump in Florida,” Rubio said during a press conference Friday morning at Temple Beth El.
“A vote for Ted Cruz or John Kasich in Florida is a vote for Donald Trump. Any vote that doesn’t go to me is helping Donald Trump win the 99 delegates that this state will award to the winner.”
Rubio denied any quid pro quo with Kasich. “I have not talked with John Kasich,” he said.
And Kasich’s campaign, confident of its position, showed no interest in returning the favor.
“We were going to win in Ohio without his help, just as he’s going to lose in Florida without ours,” said Kasich campaign spokesman Rob Nichols.
But Kasich’s camp wasted little time capitalizing. Chief strategist John Weaver quickly fired off a fundraising email touting Rubio’s support as evidence that Republicans are consolidating around Kasich.
Last week, Romney, the GOP’s 2012 nominee, suggested that Republicans band together to stop Trump from winning the 1,237 delegates necessary to secure the party’s nomination outright, floating the idea that Rubio and Kasich should urge each other’s supporters to back the other in their critical, home-state contests.
The three remaining GOP contenders vying to stop Trump also met Wednesday and Thursday with Jeb Bush in Miami.
“We welcome the support of the Rubio campaign,” said Trent Duffy, another Kasich spokesman, who called any attempt to tell voters what to do “presumptuous.”
“Voters don’t want to be told what to do. We are not going to be presumptuous to instruct our voters how they should vote,” he continued. “The voters should vote their conscience. They should vote for the best person they think is best able to lead our country. We believe that man is John Kasich… everywhere across the country.”
Ted Cruz, who has added campaign stops in Florida this week in an effort to help Trump deliver the deathblow to Rubio, scoffed at the broader strategy – or Rubio’s “games,” as he put it.
“It’s real simple,” Cruz told reporters in Orlando, where he campaigned Friday morning before flying to Missouri. “How do you beat Donald Trump? You beat him.”
Cruz’s campaign, however, has pulled its television ads that were scheduled to run over the weekend here, signaling a recognition that the money might be better spent elsewhere.
While Rubio and his campaign denied any strategic shift Friday, the senator’s comments came less than an hour after his spokesman went on CNN and put forth the same argument, acknowledging that only Kasich can defeat Trump in Ohio, which awards all of its 66 delegates to the winner.
“If you are a Republican primary voter in Ohio and you want to defeat Donald Trump, your best chance in Ohio is John Kasich,” the spokesman, Alex Conant, said.
“The same is true here in Florida,” he continued, emphasizing that Rubio is best positioned to beat the real-estate mogul in the state’s primary Tuesday for its 99 delegates, also all awarded to the outright winner.
“If you’re a voter and Marco Rubio is not necessarily your first choice – if you like John Kasich or you like Ted Cruz and you’re here in Florida, you need to vote for Marco Rubio because he’s the only one who can deprive Donald Trump of those 99 delegates,” he said. “And if we stop Donald Trump here in Florida, we can stop him in Cleveland. He will not be the Republican nominee.”
A recent poll shows Kasich with a narrow lead over Trump in Ohio, while a series of Florida surveys show Rubio trailing the business magnate, although by different margins.
“Unfortunately, we’ve gotta do whatever it takes to stop Donald Trump from winning Ohio and stop his march to the nomination,” said Jason Roe, a Rubio adviser.
After an event designed to highlight Rubio’s support for Israel, Rubio shrugged off questions about polls and his long-term political future.
“I’m not concerned about polls,” Rubio said. “Voters in this election have shown a propensity to change their mind and to do that quickly. We’re very confident about what’s going to happen in Florida.”
Voters have rejected a ballot measure that would have made Ohio the first state to make marijuana legal for both recreational and medical use in a single stroke.
The initiative’s failure follows an expensive campaign, a legal fight over its ballot wording and an investigation into the proposal’s petition signatures.
The constitutional amendment dubbed Issue 3 on Tuesday’s ballot would have allowed adults 21 and older to use, buy or grow certain amounts of marijuana. It also would have established a regulatory and taxation scheme while creating a network of 10 growing facilities.
Those growing sites were targeted in a separate ballot question aimed at preventing monopolies from being inserted into Ohio’s Constitution for the economic benefits of a few.
The defeat of Issue 3 means a court challenge can be avoided as to which issue would have trumped the other.
Ohio voters have approved a measure to prevent monopolies from being inserted into the state constitution.
The measure known as Issue 2 on Tuesday’s ballot aims to keep individuals or private economic interests from placing new monopolies, cartels or oligopolies into the Ohio Constitution for their own benefit.
The practice has become increasingly common around the country as it becomes more expensive to mount a ballot campaign. Investors design such efforts to deliver economic benefits as a sort of return on investment for funding the ballot initiative.
Issue 2 targeted the system of 10 marijuana-growing sites that would have been created by the pot legalization question known as Issue 3 on the ballot. Issue 3 was defeated, avoiding a court challenge as to which issue would have trumped the other.
Almost 50 percent of Florida voters say that former Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio should end their respective bids for the Republican presidential nomination, according to a new poll.
A survey from the left-leaning Public Policy Polling (PPP) finds that 47 percent of voters in the Sunshine State say Bush should drop out, while 40 percent say he should stick with it.
Forty-eight percent also say Rubio should drop out, while 42 percent say the senator, who has opted to run for president instead of seeking a second term in the Senate, should not drop out of the race.
A similar survey from the polling outfit released last week found that 78 percent of Republicans in South Carolina thought Sen. Lindsey Graham should end his 2016 GOP bid.
Bush and Rubio are thought to be top contenders for the GOP nomination, but are polling in single digits nationally behind billionaire businessman Donald Trump and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson.
In the latest poll of Florida, which holds its primaries in mid-March, Trump is supported by 28 percent of GOP primary voters, followed by Carson (17 percent), Bush (13 percent) and Rubio (10 percent).
On the Democratic side, the latest PPP poll finds continued support for front-runner Hillary Clinton, who takes 55 percent support in the state despite struggling in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Clinton is followed in Florida by Sen. Bernie Sanders (Socialist-Vt.) at 18 percent and Vice President Joe Biden, who is still considering jumping into the presidential race, at 17 percent.
Trump and Clinton’s front-runner statuses were also seen in a Gravis Marketing poll also released on Monday.
The PPP survey of 814 Florida voters was conducted Sept. 11 to Sept. 13 via phone and the Internet with a margin of error of 3.4 points, while the margin of error for the 377 GOP and 368 Democratic primary voters is 5.1 points.
The anti-gun senators are all Democrats or so-called Independents. Meet all 46! Write Down their names, and Share them with everyone you know.
Baldwin (D WI)
Baucus (D MT)
Bennet (D CO)
Blumenthal (D CT)
Boxer (D CA)
Brown (D OH)
Cantwell (D WA)
Cardin (D MD)
Carper (D DE)
Casey (D PA)
Coons (D DE)
Cowan (D MA)
Durbin (D IL)
Feinstein (D CA)
Franken (D MN)
Gillibrand (D NY)
Harkin (D IA)
Hirono (D HI)
Johnson (D SD)
Kaine (D VA)
King (I ME)
Klobuchar (D MN)
Landrieu (D LA)
Leahy (D VT)
Levin (D MI)
McCaskill (D MO)
Menendez (D NJ)
Merkley (D OR)
Mikulski (D MD)
Murphy (D CT)
Murray (D WA)
Nelson (D FL)
Reed (D RI)
Reid (D NV)
Rockefeller (D WA)
Sanders (I VT)
Schatz (D HI)
Shaheen (D NH)
Stabenow (D MI)
Udall (D CO)
Udall (D NM)
Warner (D VA)
Warren (D MA)
Whitehouse (D RI)
Wyden (D OR)
Senate Bill 139 passed 53-46. 46 US Senators voted against this: “To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.”
Fortunately, the odious, anti-American treaty was again voted down by the full Senate, but 46 Senators voted in favor of handing over our Constitutional rights to the UN.
Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) offered Amendment 139 that was passed with a 53 to 46 vote. His Amendment contained language to affirm that foreign treaties would not trump the U.S. Constitution.
“Mr. President,” Inhofe said on the floor of the Senate, “I want to make sure that everyone understands what the United Nations trade treaty is. The trade treaty is a treaty that cedes our authority to have trade agreements with our allies in terms of trading arms.”
He went on to say, “I want to very briefly read this so nobody over there or over here misunderstands what this amendment does. This is right out of the amendment. Uphold the Second Amendment rights, that is one thing. And secondly, prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations arms trade treaties.”
But many Democrats simply didn’t agree with Inhofe’s insistence that the U.S. Constitution trump the UN.
Forty-six Democrats-Independents favored ceding your Constitutional rights over to the United Nations.
The North Carolina State Board of Elections has found thousands of instances of voter fraud in the state, thanks to a 28-state crosscheck of voter rolls. Initial findings suggest widespread election fraud.
765 voters with an exact match of first and last name, DOB and last four digits of SSN were registered in N.C. and another state and voted in N.C. and the other state in the 2012 general election.
35,750 voters with the same first and last name and DOB were registered in N.C. and another state and voted in both states in the 2012 general election.
155,692 voters with the same first and last name, DOB and last four digits of SSN were registered in N.C. and another state – and the latest date of registration or voter activity did not take place within N.C.
The second point is key, as double voting is election fraud under state and federal statutes. Punishment for double voting in federal elections can include jail time.
In October 2012, Project Veritas produced video showing a Barack Obama campaign worker helping a voter register to vote in both Texas and Florida.
The Interstate Crosscheck examines 101 million voter records in more than two dozen participating states.
The findings, while large, leave open the question of just how widespread double voting might be since 22 states did not participate in the Interstate Crosscheck.
In addition to the above, the crosscheck found that more than 13,000 deceased voters remain on North Carolina’s rolls, and that 81 of them showed voter activity in their records after death.
North Carolina officials are now calling for tighter election security.
Via Judicial Watch:
While the Obama Justice Department mounts a legal challenge against Florida for purging ineligible voters from its rolls, a television news station broadcasts an unbelievable segment that proves non U.S. citizens living in the Sunshine State vote regularly in elections.
The investigative piece was aired this week by an NBC affiliate in southwest Florida that actually tracked down and interviewed non U.S. citizens who are registered to vote and have cast ballots in numerous elections. The segment focused on Lee County, which has a population of about 620,000 and Collier County with a population of around 322,000. The reporter spent about two months digging around the voter rolls in the two counties and the discoveries are dumbfounding.
In that short time, more than 100 people registered to vote in those two areas were proven to be ineligible by the reporter. A Cape Coral woman, eligible to vote in elections, was tracked down through jury excusal forms that verify she’s not a U.S. citizen. A Naples woman, who is not a U.S. citizen either, voted six times in 11 years without being detected by authorities. A Jamaican man is also registered to vote though he’s not eligible. The reporter obtained his 2007 voter registration form, which shows the Jamaican man claims to be a U.S. citizen. Problem is, no one bothers checking to see if applicants are being truthful.
Just because one part of the country has seemingly lost its mind and is willing to give up their freedom for the promise of more security doesn’t mean everyone is on board.
In Texas, where voters took to the polls Tuesday night, a completely different set of ideas is at play. And if nationwide sentiment is any indication, other conservative and libertarian leaning states will soon follow.
Though only about half of the votes have been tallied so far, the people of Texas have spoken. It’s a roar, in fact. Voters are standing in unison and have overwhelmingly approved a variety of propositions that may well send shivers down the spines of supporters of things like universal health care, rampant welfare dependency, special privileges and gun rights.
The following results speak for themselves.
First on the chopping block is the Patient Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as Obamacare. Apparently, 93% of Texans don’t take well to having the federal government mandate what they should or shouldn’t buy with the penalty for non-compliance being IRS harassment and prison time:
The Affordable Care Act, also known as “Obamacare”, should be repealed.
This one might be a little scary for those folks who spend their lives on their couches smoking weed or mainlining heroin while hard working Americans pay for their dope:
Texas recipients of taxpayer-funded public assistance should be subject to random drug testing as a condition of receiving benefits.
You’ll never see the U.S. Congress vote for this, because they’re way too special:
All elected officials and their staff should be subject to the same laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances as their constituents.
If you’re an anti-gunner this is where you should stop reading:
Texas should support Second Amendment liberties by expanding locations where concealed handgun license-holders may legally carry.
It’s a sad state of affairs when the public has to actually vote on their right to pray in public places. Isn’t that covered by the First Amendment? Just in case it isn’t Texas will make sure you can worship and pray as you see fit:
Texans should be free to express their religious beliefs, including prayer, in public places.
Silly Texans. Didn’t anyone tell you that it’s government, not businesses, that creates jobs and grows the economy?
Texas should abolish the state franchise tax, also known as the margins tax, to encourage business growth.
Common sense laws and regulations. What a novel concept.
There’s a reason why Americans all over the country are flocking to Texas in the hopes of finding the American Dream that has been lost in so many other parts of the Union.
Already, one in three American voters say they’ve been personally hurt by Obamacare.
One-in-three U.S. voters now says his or her health insurance coverage has changed as a result of Obamacare, and the same number say the new national health care law had a negative personal impact on them.
Forty percent (40%) of Likely U.S. Voters have at least a somewhat favorable opinion of the health care law, while 56% regard it unfavorably, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. This includes 16% who view the law Very Favorably and 41% who have a Very Unfavorable opinion of it. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Favorable opinions of the law are down from 45% two weeks ago and are the lowest measured since late December. Unfavorables hit an all-time high of 58% in mid-November. Favorables fell to a record low of 36% in that same survey.
Thirty-three percent (33%) now say their insurance coverage has changed because of the new law, up a point from January and the highest finding since last July.
President Obama’s mendacious political promise, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,” continues to cast a long and disturbing shadow of doubt and confusion over millions of Americans who have lost coverage as a result of Obamacare. As 2014 unfolds, the most vulnerable senior citizens – those who receive home health care services – are about to learn they are out of luck. Obamacare opens a trap door under them, leaving this elderly population in freefall – with many citizens losing access to home health care.
Add another compelling reason to reverse Obamacare. Whether by accident or intention, the “Affordable Care Act” empirically strips America’s oldest and poorest cohort, all part of the World War II generation, of this basic coverage. Here is how.
On Jan. 1, Medicare’s home health care services, formerly serving 3.5 million elderly beneficiaries across the country, were cut under Obamacare. The cut deleted exactly 14 percent, or an estimated $22 billion, from these lowest-income Americans over four years. News of the forthcoming cut only trickled out the Friday before Thanksgiving, yet another stunning attempt by the Obama White House to reduce Medicare benefits without attracting notice.
Guess what? We noticed. This cut does irreparable damage to recipients of Medicare’s home health care services, those who are aged, homebound and sicker than the average Medicare population. Indeed, nearly two-thirds of Medicare home health care users live at or below the federal poverty level, meaning they are the most economically compromised of America’s precious senior citizens.
This cut is an indictment of White House policies. Home health care agencies have always provided services to homebound Medicare beneficiaries. No hoopla, but when these Americans needed skilled care, they got it. In contrast to expensive hospital care, critical health care services got into millions of American homes via clinicians. Home health care was – and still is – vital. It is also now effectively gone for these Americans.
How did home health care save money for taxpayers? Using 2009 as a reference year, Medicare’s average Part A and Part B payment for a home health care visit was $145, compared to $373 per day in a skilled nursing facility or a whopping $1,805 per day in a hospital. In addition, according to one leading expert, skilled home health care services saved the Medicare program $2.8 billion during the most recent three-year period. Approximately $670 million of that savings is attributable to 20,000 fewer hospital readmissions.
Given these facts, one would conclude that the value of home health care in driving down Medicare costs should be obvious, if this – and not a single-payer system – were the real goal of Obamacare. How did we lose sight of common sense? Just keep patients in a familiar surrounding – their homes, not in an expensive hospital – keep sound disease management programs that deliver better and more cost-effective outcomes, and continue to coordinate care for patients. That was working. Now we have the reverse – markedly higher medical and insurance costs, with absolutely no institutional connection, support or continuing benefits for these especially needy Americans, the ones who depended – with their families – on critical home health care benefits. The president and his Democratic surrogates in the House and Senate have done it again: They have wiped out another critical, working system with this Obamacare monstrosity.
What else will this home health care cut achieve? It will hit the small businesses that provide home health care nationwide, and is already doing so. More than 90 percent of those providing home health care are small businesses. According to the U.S. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 40 percent of these companies will be operating “at a loss” – that is, they will likely fold or end up in bankruptcy – by 2017 as a result of the cut. What does that mean? It means nearly 5,000 more Medicare home health care providers may go out of business, and nearly 500,000 more jobs within this flogged industry may be wiped out to fund Obamacare. Those who care about such things should put that into their future unemployment calculations – and then thank Mr. Obama and his congressional friends, who all got a waiver and probably do not worry about home health care anyway.
Attacking our weakest senior citizens is no way to run a country. It is, in a word, reprehensible. This abomination devastates another existing and essential Medicare promise, while throwing one more gut-wrenching punch at this job sector. Does the truth no longer matter? Do these lives no longer matter? Do these businesses and jobs no longer matter? When will Mr. Obama and his allies in Congress let up and allow Americans to look after themselves again, as we used to quite well?
Colorado residents on Tuesday voted to recall both Democratic Senate President John Morse and state Sen. Angela Giron over a number of gun control laws they helped pushed through the Legislature.
With 100 percent of the results in, 50.9 percent of Colorado residents voted to recall Morse in the historic election, the Denver Post reports. Morse delivered his concession speech late Tuesday night.
“We as the Democratic party will continue to fight,” Morse told supporters in Colorado Springs as he conceded the race.
Republican Bernie Herpin, a former Colorado Springs city councilman, will replace him.
Meanwhile, Giron, challenged over her support for stricter gun laws after last year’s mass shootings, was also rebuked in a race seen as a measure of popular support for gun legislation.
Though hesitant to concede at first, Giron realized she too had been fired by Colorado voters. With 100 percent of the projected results in, 56 percent of voters favored the recall, according to the Denver Post.
Angered by new limits on ammunition magazines and expanded background checks, gun-rights activists filed enough voter signatures for the recall elections – the first for state legislators since Colorado adopted the procedure in 1912.
The recalls were seen as the latest chapter in the national debate over gun rights – and, for some, a warning to lawmakers in swing states who might contemplate gun restrictions in the future. But gun rights activists’ efforts to force recall elections for two other Colorado Democrats failed this year.
As The Blaze previously reported, the recall election was apparently triggered by six “regular guys” who were fed-up with lawmakers ramming gun control laws down the throats of voters and ignoring the Second Amendment. It proves beyond a reasonable doubt that a small group of people, or even just one person, can truly make a difference if they take a stand.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states cannot on their own require would-be voters to prove they are U.S. citizens before using a federal registration system designed to make signing up easier.
The justices voted 7-2 to throw out Arizona’s voter-approved requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal “Motor Voter” voter registration law.
Federal law “precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself,” Justice Antonia Scalia wrote for the court’s majority.
The court was considering the legality of Arizona’s requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal “motor voter” registration law. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which doesn’t require such documentation, trumps Arizona’s Proposition 200 passed in 2004.
Arizona appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.
“Today’s decision sends a strong message that states cannot block their citizens from registering to vote by superimposing burdensome paperwork requirements on top of federal law,” said Nina Perales, vice president of litigation for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and lead counsel for the voters who challenged Proposition 200.
“The Supreme Court has affirmed that all U.S. citizens have the right to register to vote using the national postcard, regardless of the state in which they live,” she said.
The case focuses on Arizona, which has tangled frequently with the federal government over immigration issues involving the Mexican border. But it has broader implications because four other states — Alabama, Georgia, Kansas and Tennessee — have similar requirements, and 12 other states are contemplating such legislation.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the court’s ruling.
The Constitution “authorizes states to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied,” Thomas said in his dissent.
Opponents of Arizona’s law see it as an attack on vulnerable voter groups such as minorities, immigrants and the elderly. They say they’ve counted more than 31,000 potentially legal voters in Arizona who easily could have registered before Proposition 200 but were blocked initially by the law in the 20 months after it passed in 2004. They say about 20 percent of those thwarted were Latino.
Barbara Arnwine, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, called the decision a victory. “The court has reaffirmed the essential American right to register to vote for federal election without the burdens of state voter suppression measures,” she said.
But Arizona officials say they should be able to pass laws to stop illegal immigrants and other noncitizens from getting on their voting rolls. The Arizona voting law was part of a package that also denied some government benefits to illegal immigrants and required Arizonans to show identification before voting.
The federal “motor voter” law, enacted in 1993 to expand voter registration, requires states to offer voter registration when a resident applies for a driver’s license or certain benefits. Another provision of that law — the one at issue before the court — requires states to allow would-be voters to fill out mail-in registration cards and swear they are citizens under penalty of perjury, but it doesn’t require them to show proof. Under Proposition 200, Arizona officials require an Arizona driver’s license issued after 1996, a U.S. birth certificate, a passport or other similar document, or the state will reject the federal registration application form.
While the court was clear in stating that states cannot add additional identification requirements to the federal forms on their own, it was also clear that the same actions can be taken by state governments if they get the approval of the federal government and the federal courts.
Arizona can ask the federal government to include the extra documents as a state-specific requirement, Scalia said, and take any decision made by the government on that request back to court. Other states have already done so, Scalia said.
The Election Assistance Commission “recently approved a state-specific instruction for Louisiana requiring applicants who lack a Louisiana driver’s license, ID card or Social Security number to attach additional documentation to the completed federal form,” Scalia said.
The case is 12-71, Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.
Government officials like to use eminent domain for the convenience of their preferred policies and/or the enrichment of themselves and their buddies. Usually, they get away with it, because the folks on the receiving end are too few and powerless to hold their tormentors to account. In Hackensack, New Jersey, however, the officials who targeted Michael Monaghan’s property for seizure as part of an “area in need of redevelopment,” even while denying him the right to develop it himself, pushed too many people around, too often. Last month, voters booted out the entire city council.
From the Institute for Justice:
Michael Monaghan has wanted to develop his property on Main Street in Hackensack, New Jersey, just a few miles away from Manhattan. Yet the city twice denied two applications for banks to build on his land.
Instead, Hackensack’s Planning Board designated Michael’s and another owner’s land as an “area in need of redevelopment,” authorizing the use of eminent domain to condemn and seize the properties. “I’ve stood up and tried to protect my property for the last eight years,” he said in an interview with a local paper.
Adding insult to injury, this designation was completely unwarranted. According to Michael’s attorney, Peter Dickson, the board “did not make the Constitutional finding of blighted, and did not have any evidence that would support such a finding.”
Last month, the Appellate Division of the state Superior Court agreed, ruling the Planning Board didn’t properly prove that those properties were blighted and “in need of redevelopment.” The city council intended to appeal the appellate court’s decision.
But fortunately for property owners, Hackensack’s entire city council was booted out of office. The grassroots group Citizens for Change won every single seat on the city council, despite being outraised 2:1. Their slate of candidates successfully ran on a platform against costly litigation, nepotism, and corruption. (For example, Hackensack’s police chief was recently convicted for official misconduct and insurance fraud.) Citizens for Change also sharply criticized Hackensack’s redevelopment projects, calling them “sweetheart deals and special privileges for politically connected property owners and developers.”
A happy outcome like this is no surefire guarantee that eminent domain won’t be abused in the future. But it is a sign that, even in New Jersey, government officials have to keep the bullying below the public’s pain threshold.
Virginia voters must have photo identification starting next year under a measure Republican Governor Bob McDonnell signed into law on Tuesday.
Virginia Republicans have said the law will prevent voter fraud, while Democrats have called it a maneuver to suppress the votes of older people, minorities and the poor.
McDonnell signed the measure “with the recognition that almost all citizens already have acceptable forms of photo ID that would allow them to vote and a majority of voters support this policy,” he said in a statement.
The legislation provides for free identification with the bearer’s photo to any registered voter who does not have one.
McDonnell also ordered the State Board of Elections to start a public information program to tell voters about the new requirement before the 2014 elections.
A similar bill in Arkansas was vetoed on Monday by Democratic Governor Mike Beebe, who said it might disenfranchise voters.
Nearly three dozen states that have similar voter ID measures, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Legal challenges to voter ID laws are pending in several states.
A majority of voters believe the country is worse off today than it was four years ago and that President Obama does not deserve reelection, according to a new poll for The Hill.
Fifty-two percent of likely voters say the nation is in “worse condition” now than in September 2008, while 54 percent say Obama does not deserve reelection based solely on his job performance.
Only 31 percent of voters believe the nation is in “better condition,” while 15 percent say it is “about the same,” the poll found. Just 40 percent of voters said Obama deserves reelection.
The results highlight the depth of voter dissatisfaction confronting Obama as he makes his case for a second term at this week’s Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C.
They also strongly suggest Democrats need to convince voters the election should be a choice between Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney, rather than a referendum on the president.
Obama’s biggest problem remains voter unhappiness with his handling of the economy.
Fifty percent of voters said they were “very unsatisfied” with Obama’s stewardship of the economy. Another 8 percent said they were somewhat unsatisfied.
More voters in The Hill’s poll think Romney will win the fall election than think Obama will win – despite state-by-state polls that suggest the president would have an edge in a number of swing states if the election were held today.
The poll found 46 percent of voters believe Romney will win the Nov. 6 election, compared to 43 percent who said they expect Obama to win.
The Hill’s poll was conducted Sept. 2 among 1,000 likely voters by Pulse Opinion Research. It has a 3 percentage point margin of error.
Romney’s campaign on Monday sought to exploit Obama’s vulnerability on the economy by asking voters whether their lives are better now than when Obama became president.
“The president cannot tell you that you’re better off,” GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan said in a speech in North Carolina. “And if we want to improve things, then how would rehiring the same administration do that? It wouldn’t.”
The GOP attacks have been helped along by Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D), who on Sunday answered “no” to the question of whether the country was better off four years after Obama’s election.
O’Malley on Monday reversed himself, saying the nation is “clearly better off.” But O’Malley’s misstep allowed Republicans to go on offense.
The Hill’s polling shows skepticism about the president is entrenched among coveted centrist voters who are key to the election outcome.
Fifty-two percent of centrists said Obama does not deserve reelection based on his job performance, 56 percent are unsatisfied with his handling of the economy and 53 percent feel the country is worse off.
Men (57 percent) are more likely than women (51 percent) to believe Obama does not deserve reelection.
The poll found sharp partisan differences in views about Obama. While 78 percent of Democrats believe the president deserves reelection, 1 in 5 do not believe he should get a second term. A poll for The Hill in early July also found 1 in 5 Democrats feel Obama has changed the nation for the worse as president. Eighty percent of Republicans believe Obama doesn’t deserve reelection, and only 11 percent think he does.
Among “other” voters – those who said they were neither Democrats nor Republicans – 61 percent say Obama does not deserve reelection.
The Obama campaign’s challenges extend to voters of all ages.
Among those aged 18-39 – a voting bloc that helped push Obama to victory in 2008 – 51 percent said the president does not deserve reelection, while 40 percent said he does.
Anti-Obama sentiment is strongest among seniors, the poll found. Sixty-five percent of voters aged 65 and over said Obama shouldn’t get a second term, while 53 percent of voters 40-64 years old feel the same.
Obama is also facing stiff headwinds on the economy among lower-middle-class and middle-class voters.
Among voters earning $40,000 to $60,000 a year, 67 percent said they were not satisfied with the president’s handling of the economy and 62 percent said the country is in worse condition now than in 2008.
Similarly, 58 percent of people earning between $20,000 and $40,000 a year said the country is worse off now, and 66 percent are unhappy with his handling of the economy.
The Hill’s poll’s sample included 51 percent women and 49 percent men. It had a slightly larger sample of Republicans – 36 percent – than Democrats, 34 percent.
Thirty percent of those polled identified themselves as being neither Democrat nor Republican.
Apart from the assessments of Obama and the state of the nation, The Hill poll found Vice President Biden is not considered a major hindrance to Obama’s reelection.
Biden stirred controversy last month when he told a mixed-race audience that Republicans, if they controlled the White House and Congress, would “put y’all back in chains” by deregulating the financial industry.
The poll found just 11 percent of voters overall – and only 6 percent of Democrats – believe Biden will damage Obama’s chance of reelection.
Seventy-one percent of voters overall said Biden’s status as Obama’s running mate will make no difference to the president’s chances of earning a second term.
————————— CLICK HERE TO VISIT THE DAILY BENEFACTOR —————————
————————————————————- TOP STORY ————————————————————-
Former Republican Congressional candidate and friend Ari David sent in this analysis on the Bell, California elections that were held yesterday.
Spanish news La Opinion prints the truth about the Indicted Democrats in Bell
I want to congratulate La Opinion for finally doing what the LA Times won’t. THE major Spanish Language paper in the Los Angeles area published an article that revealed that all the indicted officials involved in ripping off the Bell taxpayers are all Democrats. Hat tip goes to La Opinion for their journalistic courage for publishing it.
Come on LA Times, don’t be scared, you can now do it too!
No, they can’t.
Bell voters swept the corrupt city democrats from office last night. Of course, you wouldn’t know the crooks were democrats from The LA Times report:
Bell residents voted overwhelmingly to recall four embattled council members Tuesday with 100% of the votes counted in the small southeast Los Angeles County city.
More than 95% of the city’s residents voted to recall council members Teresa Jacobo, Oscar Hernandez and George Mirabal, as well as Councilman Luis Artiga, who resigned but was still on the ballot.
In the race to fill the remaining term of Jacobo, retired baker Danny Harber won with 1,468 votes, or 54.4%, to Coco Ceja’s 1,239 votes, according to final election returns.
Attorney Ana Maria Quintana tallied 1,305 votes, or 44%, to fill the remaining term of Artiga. Miguel A. Sanchez, who passed away last week, was in second with 683 votes, or 23% of the total.
In the race to fill three four-year terms on the council, businessman Ali Saleh had received 1,355 votes, followed by Nestor E. Valencia with 1,242 votes and Violeta Alvarez with 1,220 votes, election returns showed.
About 33% of the city’s 10,400 registered voters cast ballots in the heated contest.
—————————————————— NOTE TO READERS ——————————————————
THE DAILY BENEFACTOR now provides you with a large selection of NEWS WIDGETS containing RSS feeds from the most comprehensive news sources on the internet, such as THE DRUDGE REPORT, GATEWAY PUNDIT, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER, WORLDNETDAILY, POLITICO, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, CNS, MICHELLE MALKIN, BREITBART, and THE JERUSALEM POST. Check them out!