Breaking –Election 2012 – Attorney’s from MA and NY to Monitor Polls – in the Bay State.

Former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney campaigning in PA, image US News & World Report online

The world has turned upside down – for some reason attorney’s will be monitoring the general election in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, according to Mass. Lawyers Weekly. A Boston Attorney, Vincent DeVito, noted that “lawyers from New York will be on loan to help with the Massachusetts Republican Party’s poll-watching efforts on Nov. 6.”, and shockingly: “This year Massachusetts is a battleground state.” (Mass. Lawyers Weekly)

Of course, common perception is that Massachusetts is a completely Democrat state, however, the truth is – not so much. With over 50% of the electorate registered as “unenrolled”, and up until recently an extremely anemic Republican Party with few, if any contested races prior to 2010, there was little choice each election – resulting in votes for myriad cartoon characters.

That said, with the Romney PAC running ads in Massachusetts to reach New Hampshire, and the fact that New York City is a disaster area comparable to Katrina, with people diving into dumpsters to find food, electrical crews turned away from volunteering because they were non-union coupled with the unemployment rate in Massachusetts climbing for the third straight month and most importantly, Scott Brown’s race with Obama appointee and part-time Harvard Professor, Elizabeth Warren, the impetus will be a drive to the right by Independents.

Again, to emphasize, Massachusetts voters voter roles have again seen an increase in Independent (unenrolled voters) as of February 2012(Boston.com) and Masslive, the website for the Springfield Republican, noted this morning that “Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is growing more popular in Massachusetts, particularly among independent voters.” This is based on poll findings by Western New England College/Masslive, which saw an increase for Romney in the Bay State: The pollster had Obama leading by 30 points, that lead is now at an incredible 18 points. This poll was conducted similar to the polls in the 2009 special election which gave then candidate Martha Coakley a 15 point lead over then candidate Scott Brown. (In that case, Democrats were counted as equal to the number of unenrolleds, and Republicans’ were over counted by 2 points, in addition, geography counts, Worcester County the second most populated area of the state, was counted at lower percentage than Western Massachusetts. Of note: Conservative leaning independents in the Worcester area are far more prevalent than the less populated, Western Mass area.)

In other words, the poll is suspect. A private polling firm released a poll on a Massachusetts District race in one of the most Democrat areas of the Commonwealth. In that poll, before the debates, Romney was tied with Obama. Granted that was a Congressional District Poll, but, again, in an area that actually leans Democrat. Therefore, with the Dead Voting, trolling for votes in Alzheimer’s wards, and other hi-jinks by the Democrat Party in MA, one might think that Attorney’s coming in to watch the polls is prudent at this stage. It is also known that the media is interested in what appears to be a “hotly contested race” for the Senate between Brown and Warren, so eyes will be on Mass.

The last time Massachusetts voted for a Republican Presidential Candidate: 1984 (also 1980) – for President Ronald Reagan.

The state’s “Independent Streak” which was responsible for the Reagan win, has broadened in scope since the 1980’s with the largest percentage growth of the electorate – as unenrolled. Therefore, if Romney is appealing to the Independents, it is quite plausible that Poll watchers may be necessary, and that Massachusetts with its 10 Electoral College votes, might bear watching. It is more likely, all polls now stand as “Safe Democrat” and the state was automatically put into the President’s column. It was also a given for James Carter.

The Aftermath of Hurricane Sandy in New York – Why Wasn’t the majority of the East Coast Prepared, and why weren’t Individual Prepared? The Economy, Failure at the Federal Level and No Self-Reliance.

In reading the heartbreaking articles and looking at videos of the aftermath of “Sandy” in New Jersey and New York, one must understand that there were several factors involved in the resulting chaos – including extreme food shortages as well as loss of fuel that will continue through this weekend and possibly into next week in many of the affected areas. I have read comments under articles describing individuals going through extreme hardship, and those comments are callous to the extreme. There are those who have lived through a natural disaster with some comfort because they were prepared well in advance, and that is a growing group of Americans. Call them “preppers”, or survivalists, or in some cases, just people that have been through a several day blackout, learned what to do or not to do and are now more vigilant. In answer to the question: why weren’t New Yorkers’ and those in Connecticut and New Jersey prepared for this type of event? There are multiple answers. The least discussed is the absolute failure of the National Weather Service and the National Hurricane Service to adequately name the storm a “hurricane” – in technical jargon, it was called a “nor’easter, or a Franken-storm (due to the hybrid nature of a hurricane far north meeting with a nor’easter. This led forecasters on the local level, to be a bit more at-ease that they should have been, and by the time the realization that a massive hurricane/nor’easter was hours away, there was no time to take action. Yes, there were mandatory evacuations of those areas of New York and the Jersey Coastline, a day or two before the storm hit. It appeared that those governors, mayors and emergency management teams understood that something significant would occur – but there was no plan in place to accommodate this type of disaster.

The question as to why weren’t people able to fend for themselves comes up a great deal – especially regarding the people in New York City. It is really simple to point a finger at those who are scrambling to find food, or simply did not leave the city or move inland to get out of the way, when one forgets or has not experience the severity of this type of storm hitting such a large populated area. First, the majority were under the impression that this was a nor’easter, maybe a bit bigger, but nothing that would cause the lights to go out for over a week. After living through the October Blizzard in New England, one might have taken stock of things one needed to have on hand if one wanted to be “moderately comfortable”, but there was much that was learned after the fact: Fill up your car with gas, have adequate water on hand for a week at the least, for you, and your pets, the same goes for food that may not have to be cooked, have a second place to go in case you have to leave your home. What doesn’t work when the power goes down? Everything, there are no ATM’s to get cash, you cannot use a debit card, or credit card, the gas pumps shut down and the demand goes up once the power comes back on. One or two gas stations with power in an area without power, cannot accommodate the demand, and quickly run out of gas. That said, the October Storm took place in New England, were the population is possibly combined the size of New York City.

Individuals were, in all likelihood, financially ill equipped to purchase food, and or even the transportation to get out of the City and pay for alternative shelter.

To those who feel that people from New York and New Jersey should have known better, or somehow have been better prepared, should think about the first time they were hit by this type of disaster. They may have been ready (which is not the norm), or they may have learned by facing some hardships what to do the next time.

There is the final problem that we face - and that is reliance on government – yes, we should have protection from our Federal and State Governments, especially in the aftermath, the government is supported by taxpayers, so clean-up and keeping the peace should be their primary obligation. As to who “helps” those who are stuck, without food, water or power, that should be the local level and the able bodied individual's responsibility. Those that assume the Government will take care of them, need to be told the truth, and the simple truth is – “you’re on your own “.

Therefore, in every neighborhood, in every schoolroom, there in every state there should be an awareness, either through schools, or churches or neighborhood groups regarding how to prepare in the event o f a disruptions of services – in advance. There is no need to be in a constant state of heightened anxiety in the “event” of a storm, or other scenario -some of which may be so beyond our comprehension that any preparedness would be in vein (that in a moment). It is the simple things, with the communications we enjoy in today’s society that every single individual should be able to fend for themselves, be tended to because a neighbor has their back, and in the long run to survive and start rebuilding before relying in local services, let alone the State Government (which is responsible) the Federal Government should be the last resort.

Why not has the Federal Government take care of everything? New York City is asking the Fed’s to foot the entire bill for this disaster. Apparently Mayor Bloomberg has no clue as to the fact that the Fed is so deep in debt, they cannot afford to help. He should be asking his very capable Governor, what to do next. Actually he should have has his own plan in place to cope with exactly this type of nightmare scenario. The Federal Government is, simply put running out of money, we can print more, but in the long run, it is a question of how much can the Fed stretch what does not exist?

To Recap: The Federal Government failed in not portraying the storm as a hurricane, and warning residents to prepare for this event days in advance. The economy , in most instances, prevented individuals from buying supplies and/or transportation that would have been a drain on most families, in any event, and the over reliance on “government” in this country, rather than reliance on self must change.

What happens next? That’s the question. The what-if’s are huge, and what this blogger recalls from stories her grandmother told about life in New England in the 1930’s through the 1950’s would be a horror story today. Storms of this magnitude, both snow and rain were more common in certain periods, additionally there were more frequent earthquakes in the northeast , without knowing where the center of the quake was located, those in lower Massachusetts saw large trees split in two. She was not the type to exaggerate, but she did preach self-reliance and the fact that we lived in a free nation, and were not subject to a tyrannical government. In other words, we are allowed to take care of ourselves, in case the government neither cares, or is incompetent, or ill-equipped.

What that illustrates is that those who do not look at the past are, in almost every case, with few exceptions, we are bound to repeat it, at some time in the future.

With New England and the northeast, the future is now. But what of California and the eventual shift if the earth’s surface that may see half of the state destroyed – are Californian’s ready? Does anyone believe that those living in Los Angeles or San Francisco are prepared to survive in the event? Does one seriously believe that “the government” can’t reach them to bail them out? This is not paranoia, this is just pragmatic, and should apply to every areas of the nation that is either prone to extreme weather events, even if one has not taken place in 100 years, there are simply no “freak “events when it comes to the nature of earth science. This would eliminate, in part, the suffering that is taking place along the east coast now, and will help those who will suffer in the future. People should understand, no matter one’s background, that they must first rely on themselves, and that they must rely on their neighbors during a time of crisis. They should understand what needs to be on hand, and what steps one can take in order to try and survive a hurricane, earthquake, tornado or blizzard. It is education that will help the public and not only those that are so reliant on the governments, from the local level to the Federal , but anyone who has never faced nor excepts to face this type of event. We should have a nation of girl scouts and boy scouts – we did at one time.

In the meantime, give what you can to aid those in need, to alleviate suffering:

Catholic Relief Services

Food Bank for New York City

Operation USA

The Salvation Army

Best Friends Animal Society

Time Asks: “Remembering 1980, are the polls missing something?” – Unequivocally – Yes! The Final Analysis 2012.

Dr.George Gallup – Pioneer in Public Polling –image: (with article) Gallup.com

From Time Magazine the question of the polling taking place and the constant “too close to call” scenarios from a myriad group of pollsters in 2012, compared to what happened in 1980 speaks to the historical aspect of polling and the mistakes that occur from time to time. The article makes one claim, however, that states that since pollsters “got it wrong” so badly in 1980 – a race that saw a “too close to call” from pollsters turn overnight into an historical Reagan route”, they had made a correction to fix the system to eliminate errors. Of course, that’s not necessarily true.

In the aftermath of the 1980 general election, the pollsters were being called upon to explain themselves by the media! How could a race that was too close to call, end up a dramatic victory for the Republican, Ronald Regan, a clown by media standards? The Gallup organization, in an interview, post 1980 general election suggested that the problem with the polling was that the methodology to predict the race was based on the 1976 general election turnout, and that, somehow, between 1976 and 1980 the general electorate swung towards the Republicans (George Gallup – The Youngstown Vindicator, December 21st, 1980

That may sound eerily familiar, given the fact that there is a load of 8 points per pollster based on the 2008 election. This one fact, that should be front and center (and has been argued by some blogs (including this one), and right of center news organizations) has been ignored, by the media, and by the pollsters). Therefore, to anticipate that the Democrats will maintain an 8 point advantage (or Republicans for that matter) over a 4 year period, with the economy in a shamble and foreign policy iffy at best, to load for a previous election, defies historical fact. Although one might point out that times change and history may not be totally accurate, they would not be considering that 8 point advantage which would have applied to the 2010 general election, turned into a Republican win of historical proportions. Therefore, logically, if there is an automatic 8 point load on all polls, to beat a dead horse once again, the poll is flawed, and that 8 points could go anywhere. If the Presidential Race is tied, in every national poll, and Romney is confident, his campaign is spending on ad buys in States where the Democrats allegedly are “safe”, then one might suggest that his internal polls do are not hampered by an artificial load, but based on whose voting for whom now. On the flip side, one might suggest that the President would benefit greatly from Hurricane Sandy – and how well he is handling the situation – 5 days before the general election. They would be remise in understanding that there are no minds left to be “made up” and few people would change their vote. The biggest problem faced is that the early voting efforts by both campaigns differed and there were a good percentage of the votes cast to date – nationwide. The Republican’s focused on their hard to reach or least likely voters, while the Obama Campaign focused on getting out its most reliable voters early. Gallup reported that in early voting surveys; Romney was well ahead of the Incumbent President Obama. Since the Republicans are “enthusiastic” about the election (to say the least) the polls going into Tuesday suggest, yet again, a round of questions pointed at those same pollsters. It would therefore suggest that no polls are at present, correct; there may be a few that show Romney with an advantage, but that advantage is within the statistical margin of error. One might be tempted to think that the race is so tight that the race may come down to one state. Again, no one knows, given that the models used, are – somewhat flawed.

There are a few things to ponder – when one cannot with a certainty – know who is going to win in advance and that is as it should be. One might have an idea, or a clue, or a projection, as one does when one heads to Vegas, however, one is playing odds. Therefore, on this one, based on historical evidence that the type of polling done in 1980 clearly is in use in 2012, that the economic indicators alone are a factor in individuals decisions, that the enrollment by party is up for Republicans and down for Democrats nationally, and that there is a large enthusiasm gap between Republican’s and Democrat identifies, this race, as they say, is over, but for the voting. Of course, one might be wrong, but there is less of a feeling of maybe with this particular prediction, and more of a feeling of being “right” rather than “spinning in the hopes of a favored candidate winning “ (guilty – see 2008 election).

A Side note: in 2008 this blogger was less than enthusiastic about the GOP candidate John McCain, preferring Hillary Clinton overall. Once Clinton was out of the race, the choice was McCain, it was a choice made when one has to “hold their nose”. It was the less than enthusiastic blogger and voter that wrote then went to the polls, not with a certainty but with resign.

Fast-forward 2012. Again, Mitt Romney was not the first choice, the second or the third, he was the last choice. Then Romney, who had been through a grueling primary – stood up and acted – Presidential. Then there were the personal and business decisions that when looked at objectively made Romney look like a stand-up guy who would do his utmost and had the experience to get the job done. Not easily convinced, this was a personal swing of gigantic proportions. This blogger is not alone. As the days approach where the polls are the first place to go, and early, on election day, this Tuesday, Nov. 6th, it will be with certainly and hope and excitement that this blogger goes to the polls and casts a vote for Mitt Romney for President. One thinks the night will be long, but perhaps not, given the speed with the 1980 election was called (again should history repeat) and one strongly believes that there will be a rather large party in Boston that very night.