2010 Election Results (for anyone interested)
Created on: December 5th, 2010
They unfortunately elected Bill Montford - a man who cannot make a distinction between what an "issue" is and what a "solution" is.
Sponsorships:
| user | amount | user | amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| No one has sponsored this site ( ._.) | |||
| Sponsor this site! | Total: $0.00 | Active: $0.00 | |
Vote metrics:
| rating | total votes | favorites | comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| (3.66) | 99 | 9 | 69 |
View metrics:
| today | yesterday | this week | this month | all time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5,785 |
Inbound links:
I don't want to debate your point on hemp, I have a different one. This last election some grossly under qualified janitor ran for county sheriff as a Democrat. A good portion of his campaign consisted of cutting wasteful spending by not arresting people for possession. His position didn't seem to be as articulate as yours. He was openly against marijuana laws, probably because he liked to smoke himself. If my job was a High School Janitor, I would too. Unlike someone running for a legislative seat, where laws are written and rewritten, having a view contrary to current laws is fine. A sheriff on the other hand is supposed to uphold laws, not pick and choose which ones he likes. He was obviously unqualified.
The point is, he still got 34% of voters to vote for him. Roughly 1/3 of voters in my county are morons. They either voted for the guy because of his idiotic position or because he had a "D" next to his name.
How much of that 30% you received really understood your position? Or were they just pot heads and people that vote for anyone with an "R" next to their name? Considering you were out-raised (you didn't say how much was spent) by 222 times....
The point is, he still got 34% of voters to vote for him. Roughly 1/3 of voters in my county are morons. They either voted for the guy because of his idiotic position or because he had a "D" next to his name.
How much of that 30% you received really understood your position? Or were they just pot heads and people that vote for anyone with an "R" next to their name? Considering you were out-raised (you didn't say how much was spent) by 222 times....
The same could be asked of the 67% that voted for Montford. How many of the 99,000 people that voted for him do you think understood [i]his [/i]positions? In fact, go to his website and find me one single position of his on any major political issue out there. (Education aside, since he has served in education for over 30 years.) Let me know if you find anything about any issues, or any possible solutions or ideas he perhaps has. The same argument can be made the other way around -- while "pot heads and people that vote for anyone with an "R" next to their name" might have earned me a significant amount of votes, an [b]overwhelming [/b]majority of ignorance must have accompanied those who went to the polls to vote for Montford. Why? Because no one had a clue what he stood for. Every speech he gave consisted of something like, "What we need in the Senate is strong, effective leadership." No substance whatsoever.
I'm guessing roughly 20% of the people who voted for me were aware of my platform, judging from the number of public speaking engagements I attended, the amount of press surrounding the election (quite limited), the amount of advertising I did, and the number of unique visitors on my website. The rest of course would either be those who simply did not like Montford, those who voted straight Republican, or those who simply did not care. I doubt, however, that any significant number of them were "potheads" (aren't Republicans supposed to be anti-pot, anyways?)
Montford spent about $475,000. I spent every penny of what was donated to me.
I am curious as to what your position is on hemp. You say you don't want to debate me on it, but, as I have not heard a single logical argument [i]against [/i]the legalization of hemp ("We have more important issues to talk about" is not an argument), I would greatly appreciate your insight.
I'm guessing roughly 20% of the people who voted for me were aware of my platform, judging from the number of public speaking engagements I attended, the amount of press surrounding the election (quite limited), the amount of advertising I did, and the number of unique visitors on my website. The rest of course would either be those who simply did not like Montford, those who voted straight Republican, or those who simply did not care. I doubt, however, that any significant number of them were "potheads" (aren't Republicans supposed to be anti-pot, anyways?)
Montford spent about $475,000. I spent every penny of what was donated to me.
I am curious as to what your position is on hemp. You say you don't want to debate me on it, but, as I have not heard a single logical argument [i]against [/i]the legalization of hemp ("We have more important issues to talk about" is not an argument), I would greatly appreciate your insight.
For one, I am impressed that for less than $3,000, you got as many votes as you did. This was possibly because either due to a clever calculation on your part or a clerical error at the election office you were listed as the GOP candidate, and many voters go with a straight party ticket method of voting. But you need to realize that while there is no sufficient level of money to win an election, there is a minimum level, and I think you clearly missed that minimum. This could be because your platform is based on mostly federal issues. If you run for a state office, you should focus on things that Florida can actually tackle, like education and public safety. It is good to have stances on federal issues, but that alone won't get you elected to the state legislature. And your opponent is right: legalization can be a plank that you can run on, but in this economy, jobs are king.
Jobs are king? What exactly is it about my platform that doesn't create jobs? I was one of the few candidates in the entire North Florida region for any legislative seat that was actually offering people a simple, sensible way to create jobs, literally out of the ground. And yet, people still complain that it's not enough. And, again, at least I [i]had [/i]a platform - my opponent did not, so why didn't he receive the same accusations?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_state_senate#Current_members.2C_2
010-2012 -- says his term is up in 2014. Others have their term up at a similar date, so I guess the algorithm is a bit more complex than that.
Not sure if the 4chan related comment was directed toward my comment re: qualifications but... I think that speaks for itself if it did.
010-2012 -- says his term is up in 2014. Others have their term up at a similar date, so I guess the algorithm is a bit more complex than that.
Not sure if the 4chan related comment was directed toward my comment re: qualifications but... I think that speaks for itself if it did.
You do understand that running for public office means making personal sacrifices - including some things that certain people like to keep private. I don't mind being as public as possible. Hopefully people will see that as a sign of honesty. Plus, I like YTMND - it's not like it's a bad thing.
And I disagree - the last community I'd want to associate myself with is 4chan. That place is vile.
And I disagree - the last community I'd want to associate myself with is 4chan. That place is vile.
WOW! You know, I have never, in my life, thought about that. Nor have I ever heard this advice from anyone - this is the first time! You have good advice. Good advice that other people don't think about and offer.
The most frustrating thing about it is that Bill Montford had no platform. All he ever talked about is education - so why the double standard? At least I had a solution. He had nothing, yet no one ever suggested him to "broaden."
The most frustrating thing about it is that Bill Montford had no platform. All he ever talked about is education - so why the double standard? At least I had a solution. He had nothing, yet no one ever suggested him to "broaden."
Bold
Italic
Underline
Code
User Link
Site Link