DOCSLIB.ORG

General Election

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
General Election All Results Official Election Returns State of Missouri General Election ­ 2008 General Election Tuesday, November 04, 2008 As announced by the Board of State Canvassers on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 Office Candidate Name Votes % Of Votes Precincts Reporting 3532 of U.S. President And Vice President 3532 John McCain, Sarah Palin REP 1,445,814 49.4% Barack Obama, Joe Biden DEM 1,441,911 49.3% Bob Barr, Wayne A. Root LIB 11,386 .4% Chuck Baldwin, Darrell Castle CST 8,201 .3% Ralph Nader, Matt Gonzalez IND 17,813 .6% Cynthia McKinney, Rosa Clemente WI 80 .0% Total Votes 2,925,205 Precincts Reporting 3509 of Governor 3509 Hulshof, Kenny REP 1,136,364 39.5% Nixon, Jeremiah W. (Jay) DEM 1,680,611 58.4% Finkenstadt, Andrew W. LIB 31,850 1.1% Thompson, Gregory E. CST 28,941 1.0% Brown, Sr., Theodis (Ted) WI 4 .0% Serati, Mark WI2 8 .0% Total Votes 2,877,778 Precincts Reporting 3509 of Lieutenant Governor 3509 Kinder, Peter REP 1,403,706 49.9% Page, Sam DEM 1,331,177 47.3% Fleck, Teddy LIB 49,862 1.8% Rensing, James C. CST 29,153 1.0% Total Votes 2,813,898 Precincts Reporting 3509 of Secretary Of State 3509 Hubbard, Mitchell (Mitch) REP 1,006,088 35.6% Carnahan, Robin DEM 1,749,152 61.8% Upchurch, Wes LIB 39,296 1.4% Neely, Denise C. CST 35,274 1.2% Total Votes 2,829,810 Precincts Reporting 3509 of State Treasurer 3509 Lager, Brad REP 1,302,625 47.1% Zweifel, Clint DEM 1,394,627 50.5% Farthing, Rodney D. CST 66,062 2.4% Total Votes 2,763,314 Precincts Reporting 3509 of Attorney General 3509 Gibbons, Mike REP 1,312,719 47.1% Koster, Chris DEM 1,471,647 52.9% Total Votes 2,784,366 Precincts Reporting 373 of U.S. Representative ­ District 1 373 Clay, Wm. Lacy DEM 242,570 86.9% Cunningham, Robb E. LIB 36,700 13.1% Johnson, Damien WI 7 .0% Total Votes 279,277 Precincts Reporting 380 of U.S. Representative ­ District 2 380 Akin, Todd REP 232,276 62.3% Haas, William C. (Bill) DEM 132,068 35.4% Knapp, Thomas L. LIB 8,628 2.3% Total Votes 372,972 Precincts Reporting 325 of U.S. Representative ­ District 3 325 Sander, Chris REP 92,759 30.4% Carnahan, Russ DEM 202,470 66.4% Babcock, Kevin C. LIB 5,518 1.8% Redburn, Cynthia (Cindy) CST 4,324 1.4% Total Votes 305,071 Precincts Reporting 419 of U.S. Representative ­ District 4 419 Parnell, Jeff REP 103,446 34.1% Skelton, Ike DEM 200,009 65.9% Total Votes 303,455 Precincts Reporting 351 of U.S. Representative ­ District 5 351 Turk, Jacob REP 109,166 35.6% Cleaver, Emanuel II DEM 197,249 64.4% Total Votes 306,415 Precincts Reporting 450 of U.S. Representative ­ District 6 450 Graves, Sam REP 196,526 59.4% Barnes, Kay DEM 121,894 36.9% Browning, Dave LIB 12,279 3.7% Total Votes 330,699 Precincts Reporting 288 of U.S. Representative ­ District 7 288 Blunt, Roy REP 219,016 67.8% Monroe, Richard DEM 91,010 28.2% Craig, Kevin LIB 6,971 2.2% Maddox, Travis CST 6,166 1.9% Potts, Midge WI 49 .0% Total Votes 323,212 Precincts Reporting 476 of U.S. Representative ­ District 8 476 Emerson, Jo Ann REP 198,798 71.4% Allen, Joe DEM 72,790 26.2% McCullough, Branden C. LIB 4,443 1.6% Smith, Richard L. CST 2,257 .8% Total Votes 278,288 Precincts Reporting 468 of U.S. Representative ­ District 9 468 Luetkemeyer, Blaine REP 161,031 50.0% Baker, Judy DEM 152,956 47.5% Millay, Tamara A. LIB 8,108 2.5% Total Votes 322,095 State Senator ­ District 1 Precincts Reporting 99 of 99 Lembke, Jim REP 44,216 50.0% Barry, Joan DEM 44,146 50.0% Total Votes 88,362 Precincts Reporting 115 of State Senator ­ District 3 115 Engler, Kevin REP 42,551 58.7% Riche, Dennis DEM 29,917 41.3% Total Votes 72,468 State Senator ­ District 5 Precincts Reporting 96 of 96 Wright­Jones, Robin DEM 57,796 91.7% Christophel, Robert LIB 5,248 8.3% Total Votes 63,044 Precincts Reporting 113 of State Senator ­ District 7 113 Cunningham, Jane REP 54,702 61.4% Leeseberg, Kevin DEM 34,347 38.6% Total Votes 89,049 State Senator ­ District 9 Precincts Reporting 73 of 73 Wilson, Yvonne S. DEM 59,589 100.0% Total Votes 59,589 Precincts Reporting 114 of State Senator ­ District 11 114 Callahan, Victor DEM 62,128 100.0% Total Votes 62,128 State Senator ­ District 13 Precincts Reporting 88 of 88 Green, Timothy P. DEM 70,933 91.9% Harris, Eric S. LIB 6,238 8.1% Dienoff, Arnie C. WI 1 .0% Total Votes 77,172 Precincts Reporting 114 of State Senator ­ District 15 114 Schmitt, Eric REP 51,366 54.7% Trout, James DEM 42,469 45.3% Total Votes 93,835 State Senator ­ District 17 Precincts Reporting 71 of 71 Ridgeway, Luann REP 50,451 53.1% Aust, Sandra DEM 44,578 46.9% Total Votes 95,029 Precincts Reporting 115 of State Senator ­ District 19 115 Schaefer, Kurt REP 44,265 48.5% Graham, Chuck DEM 42,732 46.8% Dwyer, Christopher W. LIB 4,286 4.7% Total Votes 91,283 Precincts Reporting 120 of State Senator ­ District 21 120 Stouffer, Bill REP 47,285 64.0% Sadeghi, Joe DEM 26,643 36.0% Total Votes 73,928 State Senator ­ District 23 Precincts Reporting 63 of 63 Dempsey, Tom REP 50,821 60.2% Willis, Larry DEM 33,613 39.8% Total Votes 84,434 Precincts Reporting 146 of State Senator ­ District 25 146 Mayer, Robert (Rob) REP 43,232 65.3% Stoelting, M. Shane DEM 22,952 34.7% Total Votes 66,184 Precincts Reporting 107 of State Senator ­ District 27 107 Crowell, Jason Glennon REP 49,059 64.2% Sanders, Linda DEM 27,308 35.8% Total Votes 76,367 Precincts Reporting 115 of State Senator ­ District 29 115 Goodman, Jack REP 67,612 100.0% Total Votes 67,612 State Senator ­ District 31 Precincts Reporting 92 of 92 Pearce, David REP 49,059 57.2% Benjamin, Chris DEM 36,658 42.8% Total Votes 85,717 Precincts Reporting 108 of State Senator ­ District 33 108 Purgason, Chuck REP 53,529 67.3% Reeve, Eric DEM 25,997 32.7% Total Votes 79,526 State Representative ­ District 1 Precincts Reporting 48 of 48 Munzlinger, Brian REP 9,439 61.0% Cottrell, Keri DEM 6,046 39.0% Total Votes 15,485 State Representative ­ District 2 Precincts Reporting 28 of 28 Van Vleck, Thom REP 7,169 45.4% McClanahan, Rebecca DEM 8,626 54.6% Total Votes 15,795 State Representative ­ District 3 Precincts Reporting 60 of 60 Guernsey, Casey REP 9,924 62.2% Hepler, Mike DEM 6,025 37.8% Total Votes 15,949 State Representative ­ District 4 Precincts Reporting 36 of 36 Thomson, Mike REP 11,266 69.4% Oswald, Rick DEM 4,975 30.6% Total Votes 16,241 State Representative ­ District 5 Precincts Reporting 29 of 29 Guest, Jim REP 9,602 57.0% Waltemath, Mike DEM 7,255 43.0% Total Votes 16,857 State Representative ­ District 6 Precincts Reporting 21 of 21 Bringer, Rachel DEM 14,614 100.0% Total Votes 14,614 State Representative ­ District 7 Precincts Reporting 40 of 40 Lair, Mike REP 7,937 51.4% Wyse, Harry DEM 7,509 48.6% Total Votes 15,446 State Representative ­ District 8 Precincts Reporting 38 of 38 Austin, Mike REP 7,327 45.8% Shively, Tom DEM 8,655 54.2% Total Votes 15,982 State Representative ­ District 9 Precincts Reporting 41 of 41 Quinn, Paul DEM 14,451 100.0% Total Votes 14,451 State Representative ­ District 10 Precincts Reporting 33 of 33 Linnenbringer, Gary REP 6,160 42.5% Witte, Terry L. DEM 8,332 57.5% Total Votes 14,492 State Representative ­ District 11 Precincts Reporting 22 of 22 Colbert, Dan REP 8,874 42.4% Schieffer, Ed DEM 11,653 55.7% Leefe, David A. CST 388 1.9% Total Votes 20,915 State Representative ­ District 12 Precincts Reporting 19 of 19 Funderburk, Doug REP 12,838 60.2% Lesh, Richard DEM 8,493 39.8% Total Votes 21,331 State Representative ­ District 13 Precincts Reporting 25 of 25 Gatschenberger, Chuck REP 19,170 58.3% Hurst, David E. DEM 13,703 41.7% Total Votes 32,873 State Representative ­ District 14 Precincts Reporting 14 of 14 Smith, Joe REP 11,952 62.3% Broste, Douglas R. DEM 7,219 37.7% Total Votes 19,171 State Representative ­ District 15 Precincts Reporting 15 of 15 Faith, Sally A. REP 11,230 58.9% Niemeyer, Michael DEM 7,848 41.1% Total Votes 19,078 State Representative ­ District 16 Precincts Reporting 14 of 14 Parkinson, Mark A. REP 10,366 53.1% Manning, Kristy DEM 9,171 46.9% Total Votes 19,537 State Representative ­ District 17 Precincts Reporting 18 of 18 Schneider, Vicki REP 10,877 49.8% Biermann, Kenny DEM 10,950 50.2% Total Votes 21,827 State Representative ­ District 18 Precincts Reporting 13 of 13 Zerr, Anne REP 9,165 59.4% Swope, Tim DEM 5,750 37.3% Alsup, John R. LIB 517 3.4% Total Votes 15,432 State Representative ­ District 19 Precincts Reporting 20 of 20 Davis, Cynthia L.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Misrepresented Road to Madame President: Media Coverage of Female Candidates for National Office
    THE MISREPRESENTED ROAD TO MADAME PRESIDENT: MEDIA COVERAGE OF FEMALE CANDIDATES FOR NATIONAL OFFICE by Jessica Pinckney A thesis submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Government Baltimore, Maryland May, 2015 © 2015 Jessica Pinckney All Rights Reserved Abstract While women represent over fifty percent of the U.S. population, it is blatantly clear that they are not as equally represented in leadership positions in the government and in private institutions. Despite their representation throughout the nation, women only make up twenty percent of the House and Senate. That is far from a representative number and something that really hurts our society as a whole. While these inequalities exist, they are perpetuated by the world in which we live, where the media plays a heavy role in molding peoples’ opinions, both consciously and subconsciously. The way in which the media presents news about women is not always representative of the women themselves and influences public opinion a great deal, which can also affect women’s ability to rise to the top, thereby breaking the ultimate glass ceilings. This research looks at a number of cases in which female politicians ran for and/or were elected to political positions at the national level (President, Vice President, and Congress) and seeks to look at the progress, or lack thereof, in media’s portrayal of female candidates running for office. The overarching goal of the research is to simply show examples of biased and unbiased coverage and address the negative or positive ways in which that coverage influences the candidate.
    [Show full text]
  • Highly Partisan Reception Greets Palin As V.P. Pick
    ABC NEWS POLL: THE PALIN PICK EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE AFTER 7 a.m. Friday, Sept. 5, 2008 Highly Partisan Reception Greets Palin as V.P. Pick Sarah Palin is receiving a highly partisan reception on the national political stage, with significant public doubts about her readiness to serve as president, yet majority approval of both her selection by John McCain and her willingness to join the Republican ticket. Given the sharp political divisions she inspires, Palin’s initial impact on vote preferences and on views of McCain looks like a wash, and, contrary to some prognostication, she does not draw disproportionate support from women. But she could potentially assist McCain by energizing the GOP base, in which her reviews are overwhelmingly positive. Half of Americans have a favorable first impression of Palin, 37 percent unfavorable, with the rest undecided. Her positive ratings soar to 85 percent among Republicans, 81 percent among her fellow evangelical white Protestants and 74 percent of conservatives. Just a quarter of Democrats agree, with independents in the middle. Favorable Ratings ABC News poll 100% Democrats Independents Republicans 85% 77% 75% 53% 52% 50% 27% 24% 25% 0% Palin Biden Joe Biden, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, is similarly rated, with slightly fewer unfavorable views and partisanship running in the opposite direction. Palin: Biden: Favorable Unfavorable Favorable Unfavorable All 50% 37 54% 30 Democrats 24 63 77 9 Independents 53 34 52 31 Republicans 85 7 27 60 Men 54 37 55 35 Women 47 36 54 27 IMPACT – The public by a narrow 6-point margin, 25 percent to 19 percent, says Palin’s selection makes them more likely to support McCain, less than the 12-point positive impact of Biden on the Democratic ticket (22 percent more likely to support Barack Obama, 10 percent less so).
    [Show full text]
  • Picking the Vice President
    Picking the Vice President Elaine C. Kamarck Brookings Institution Press Washington, D.C. Contents Introduction 4 1 The Balancing Model 6 The Vice Presidency as an “Arranged Marriage” 2 Breaking the Mold 14 From Arranged Marriages to Love Matches 3 The Partnership Model in Action 20 Al Gore Dick Cheney Joe Biden 4 Conclusion 33 Copyright 36 Introduction Throughout history, the vice president has been a pretty forlorn character, not unlike the fictional vice president Julia Louis-Dreyfus plays in the HBO seriesVEEP . In the first episode, Vice President Selina Meyer keeps asking her secretary whether the president has called. He hasn’t. She then walks into a U.S. senator’s office and asks of her old colleague, “What have I been missing here?” Without looking up from her computer, the senator responds, “Power.” Until recently, vice presidents were not very interesting nor was the relationship between presidents and their vice presidents very consequential—and for good reason. Historically, vice presidents have been understudies, have often been disliked or even despised by the president they served, and have been used by political parties, derided by journalists, and ridiculed by the public. The job of vice president has been so peripheral that VPs themselves have even made fun of the office. That’s because from the beginning of the nineteenth century until the last decade of the twentieth century, most vice presidents were chosen to “balance” the ticket. The balance in question could be geographic—a northern presidential candidate like John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts picked a southerner like Lyndon B.
    [Show full text]
  • Suffolk University Virginia General Election Voters SUPRC Field
    Suffolk University Virginia General Election Voters AREA N= 600 100% DC Area ........................................ 1 ( 1/ 98) 164 27% West ........................................... 2 51 9% Piedmont Valley ................................ 3 134 22% Richmond South ................................. 4 104 17% East ........................................... 5 147 25% START Hello, my name is __________ and I am conducting a survey for Suffolk University and I would like to get your opinions on some political questions. We are calling Virginia households statewide. Would you be willing to spend three minutes answering some brief questions? <ROTATE> or someone in that household). N= 600 100% Continue ....................................... 1 ( 1/105) 600 100% GEND RECORD GENDER N= 600 100% Male ........................................... 1 ( 1/106) 275 46% Female ......................................... 2 325 54% S2 S2. Thank You. How likely are you to vote in the Presidential Election on November 4th? N= 600 100% Very likely .................................... 1 ( 1/107) 583 97% Somewhat likely ................................ 2 17 3% Not very/Not at all likely ..................... 3 0 0% Other/Undecided/Refused ........................ 4 0 0% Q1 Q1. Which political party do you feel closest to - Democrat, Republican, or Independent? N= 600 100% Democrat ....................................... 1 ( 1/110) 269 45% Republican ..................................... 2 188 31% Independent/Unaffiliated/Other ................. 3 141 24% Not registered
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Log of Judicial Appointments 1959-Present Candidates Nominated Appointed 1959 - Supreme Court - 3 New Positions William V
    Historical Log of Judicial Appointments 1959-Present Candidates Nominated Appointed 1959 - Supreme Court - 3 new positions William V. Boggess William V. Boggess John H. Dimond Robert Boochever Robert Boochever Walter Hodge J. Earl Cooper John H. Dimond Buell A. Nesbett** Edward V. Davis Walter Hodge* 1959 by Governor William Egan John H. Dimond M.E. Monagle John S. Hellenthal Buell A. Nesbett* Walter Hodge * nominated for Chief Justice Verne O. Martin M.E. Monagle Buell A. Nesbett Walter Sczudlo Thomas B. Stewart Meeting Date 7/16-17/1959 **appointed Chief Justice 1959 - Ketchikan/Juneau Superior - 2 new positions Floyd O. Davidson E.P. McCarron James von der Heydt Juneau James M. Fitzgerald Thomas B. Stewart Walter E. Walsh Ketchikan Verne O. Martin James von der Heydt 1959 by Governor William Egan E.P. McCarron Walter E. Walsh Thomas B. Stewart James von der Heydt Walter E. Walsh Meeting Date 10/12-13/1959 1959 - Nome Superior - new position James M. Fitzgerald Hubert A. Gilbert Hubert A. Gilbert Hubert A. Gilbert Verne O. Martin 1959 by Governor William Egan Verne O. Martin James von der Heydt Meeting Date 10/12-13/1959 1959 - Anchorage Superior - 3 new positions Harold J. Butcher Harold J. Butcher J. Earl Cooper Henry Camarot J. Earl Cooper Edward V. Davis J. Earl Cooper Ralph Ralph H. Cottis James M. Fitzgerald H. Cottis Roger Edward V. Davis 1959 by Governor William Egan Cremo Edward James M. Fitzgerald V. Davis James Stanley McCutcheon M. Fitzgerald Everett Ralph E. Moody W. Hepp Peter J. Kalamarides Verne O. Martin Stanley McCutcheon Ralph E.
    [Show full text]
  • Print Journalism's Framing of Female Candidates in The
    Joining the World of Journals Welcome to the nation’s first and, to our knowledge, only undergraduate research journal in communi- cations. We discovered this fact while perusing the Web site of the Council on Undergraduate Research, which lists and links to the 60 or so undergraduate research journals nationwide (http://www.cur.org/ugjournal. html). Some of these journals focus on a discipline (e.g., Journal of Undergraduate Research in Physics), some are university-based and multidisciplinary (e.g., MIT Undergraduate Research Journal), and some are university-based and disciplinary (e.g., Furman University Electronic Journal in Undergraduate Mathematics). The Elon Journal is the first to focus on undergraduate research in journalism, media and communi- cations. The School of Communications at Elon University is the creator and publisher of the online journal. The second issue was published in Fall 2010 under the editorship of Dr. Byung Lee, associate professor in the School of Communications. The three purposes of the journal are: • To publish the best undergraduate research in Elon’s School of Communications each term, • To serve as a repository for quality work to benefit future students seeking models for how to do undergraduate research well, and • To advance the university’s priority to emphasize undergraduate student research. The Elon Journal is published twice a year, with spring and fall issues. Articles and other materials in the journal may be freely downloaded, reproduced and redistributed without permission as long as the author and source are properly cited. Student authors retain copyright own- ership of their works. Celebrating Student Research This journal reflects what we enjoy seeing in our students -- intellectual maturing.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Maryland's Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016
    A History of Maryland’s Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016 A History of Maryland’s Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016 Published by: Maryland State Board of Elections Linda H. Lamone, Administrator Project Coordinator: Jared DeMarinis, Director Division of Candidacy and Campaign Finance Published: October 2016 Table of Contents Preface 5 The Electoral College – Introduction 7 Meeting of February 4, 1789 19 Meeting of December 5, 1792 22 Meeting of December 7, 1796 24 Meeting of December 3, 1800 27 Meeting of December 5, 1804 30 Meeting of December 7, 1808 31 Meeting of December 2, 1812 33 Meeting of December 4, 1816 35 Meeting of December 6, 1820 36 Meeting of December 1, 1824 39 Meeting of December 3, 1828 41 Meeting of December 5, 1832 43 Meeting of December 7, 1836 46 Meeting of December 2, 1840 49 Meeting of December 4, 1844 52 Meeting of December 6, 1848 53 Meeting of December 1, 1852 55 Meeting of December 3, 1856 57 Meeting of December 5, 1860 60 Meeting of December 7, 1864 62 Meeting of December 2, 1868 65 Meeting of December 4, 1872 66 Meeting of December 6, 1876 68 Meeting of December 1, 1880 70 Meeting of December 3, 1884 71 Page | 2 Meeting of January 14, 1889 74 Meeting of January 9, 1893 75 Meeting of January 11, 1897 77 Meeting of January 14, 1901 79 Meeting of January 9, 1905 80 Meeting of January 11, 1909 83 Meeting of January 13, 1913 85 Meeting of January 8, 1917 87 Meeting of January 10, 1921 88 Meeting of January 12, 1925 90 Meeting of January 2, 1929 91 Meeting of January 4, 1933 93 Meeting of December 14, 1936
    [Show full text]
  • Alt-Reality Leaves Its Mark on Presidential
    Fall Dispatches > CHARLES J. SYKES Alt-reality leaves its mark on presidential campaign With the arrival of fall, an anxious electorate increas- ingly feels like the kids in the back seat asking their parents, “Are we there … yet?” Some of us are even old enough to remember when round-the-clock television commercials were the most annoying aspect of our endless political campaigns. That now seems a calmer, gentler time. support is not a wise decision of his,” Palin continued. Palin soon was joined by such conservative luminaries as Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin, who parachuted into None of the above Ryan’s district on behalf of his opponent, Paul Nehlen, who The current mood was captured in a late August focus also enjoyed the full-throated group held in Brookfield, Wisconsin. Reported The Washing- support of the alt-reality ton Post: conservative media. Foremost “For a small group of undecided among Nehlen’s media cheer- voters here, the presidential choices leaders was Breibart.com, this year are bleak: Hillary Clinton which headlined his momen- is a ‘liar’ with a lifetime of political tum on a nearly daily basis. skullduggery and a ruthless agenda for “Ann Coulter lights Wis- power, while Donald Trump is your consin on fire for Paul Nehlen ‘drunk uncle’ who can’t be trusted against Paul Ryan: ‘This to listen even to the good advice he’s is it, this is your last chance paying for. to save America,’ ” Breitbart “Describing the election as a headlined. On the day of cesspool, 12 swing voters participat- the Aug.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tea Party Movement and Entelechy: an Inductive Study of Tea Party Rhetoric By
    The Tea Party Movement and Entelechy: an Inductive Study of Tea Party Rhetoric By John Leyland Price M.A., Central Michigan University, 2013 B.S.B.A., Central Michigan University, 2010 Submitted to the graduate degree program in Communication Studies and the Graduate Faculty of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Chair: Dr. Robert C. Rowland Dr. Beth Innocenti Dr. Brett Bricker Dr. Scott Harris Dr. Wayne Sailor Date Defended: 5 September 2019 ii The dissertation committee for John Leyland Price certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: The Tea Party Movement and Entelechy: an Inductive Study of Tea Party Rhetoric Chair: Dr. Robert C. Rowland Date Approved: 5 September 7 2019 iii Abstract On February 19, 2009, CNBC journalist Rick Santelli’s fiery outburst against the Obama Administration on national television gave the Tea Party Movement (TPM) its namesake. Soon after rallies were organized across the U.S. under the Tea Party banner. From its inception in 2009, the TPM became an essential player in U.S. politics and pivotal in flipping control of the Senate and House to the Republican Party during the 2010 midterm elections. The movement faced controversy on both sides of the political spectrum for its beliefs and fervent stance against compromising with political adversaries. Researchers argued that the TPM was an example of Richard Hofstadter’s Paranoid Style. Others claimed that the movement’s rhetoric, member demographics, and political success demonstrated it was outside the boundaries of the Paranoid Style.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economist/Yougov Poll List of Tables
    The Economist/YouGov Poll January 27 - 30, 2016 List of Tables 1. Interest in news and public affairs.....................................................................2 2. Direction of country.............................................................................3 3. Favorability of Democratic Presidential Candidates – Hillary Clinton...................................................4 4. Favorability of Democratic Presidential Candidates – Martin O’Malley..................................................5 5. Favorability of Democratic Presidential Candidates – Bernie Sanders..................................................6 6. Preferred Democratic Nominee for President...............................................................7 7. Enthusiasm - Democratic Candidates...................................................................8 8. Satisfaction - Democratic Field.......................................................................9 9. Iowa Caucus Winner - Democrats..................................................................... 10 10. NH Primary Winner - Democrats..................................................................... 11 11. Most Likely Democratic Nominee for President.............................................................. 12 12. Could Win General - Democrats – Hillary Clinton............................................................ 13 13. Could Win General - Democrats – Martin O’Malley........................................................... 14 14. Could Win General - Democrats – Bernie
    [Show full text]
  • Alaskans Down on Palin, Potential 2016 Bid
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 12, 2014 INTERVIEWS: Tom Jensen 919-744-6312 IF YOU HAVE BASIC METHODOLOGICAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE E-MAIL [email protected], OR CONSULT THE FINAL PARAGRAPH OF THE PRESS RELEASE Alaskans down on Palin, potential 2016 bid Raleigh, N.C. – PPP's newest Alaska poll finds that voters in the state continue to hold a very dim view of Sarah Palin and any aspirations she might have about running for President in 2016. Only 36% of voters in the state have a favorable opinion of Palin to 55% who view her negatively. Just 20% would like to see her make a bid for the White House, compared to 74% who think she should sit it out. There's actually almost as many Democrats- 17%- who want Palin to run as there are Republicans- 23%- suggesting there are as many Alaskans who want to see her run for the entertainment value as because they actually want her to be President. Palin finishes 6th when it comes to who Republican voters want to be the 2016 Presidential candidate in her home state. Ted Cruz leads with 16%, followed by Rand Paul at 15%, Mike Huckabee at 14%, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie at 12%, Palin at 11%, Scott Walker at 7%, Paul Ryan at 6%, and Marco Rubio at 5%. Beyond the lack of enthusiasm for her among Republicans, Palin also has the dubious distinction of being the only potential GOP candidate who would trail Hillary Clinton in a head to head match up- Clinton leads Palin 46/40.
    [Show full text]
  • A Pence-Ive Narration of a Gendered Vice-Presidency
    A PENCE-IVE NARRATION OF A GENDERED VICE-PRESIDENCY Trent Deckard Submitted to the faculty of the University Graduate School in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in the Department of Communication Studies, Indiana University July 2017 Accepted by the Graduate Faculty, Indiana University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts. Master’s Thesis Committee Kristina Horn Sheeler, Ph.D., Chair Catherine A. Dobris, Ph.D. Beth Goering, Ph.D. ii Acknowledgement and Dedication This paper is given in upmost appreciation to the many wonderful people that made it possible through their constant encouragement, patience, and faith in my ability to be a successful student. Thank you first to the many individuals who have employed me and gave me the best front row seat to public service and politics a dreaming kid could have ever expected. This includes Minority Leader Scott D. Pelath and the members and staff of the Indiana House Democratic Caucus, my former colleagues at the Indiana Election Division, and the staff alumni from the offices of former U.S. Representative Baron Hill. Thank you to my phenomenal teachers at IUPUI in the Department of Communication, including Dr. Kristina Sheeler, Dr. Catherine Dobris, and Dr. Elizabeth Goering, all artful educators who graciously brought this student into a world of exquisite rhetoric and learning. Thanks also to Judge Viola Taliaferro, Mr. Larry Hile, Dr. Raymond Scheele, and Ms. Brenda Snelling for propelling me forward each step of the way in my journey. Thanks to my parents and family for providing a strong foundation from which I learned right, wrong, and the fundamentals necessary for navigating difficult challenges.
    [Show full text]