GOAL Election Ratings

Isn't it amazing that a large number of Democrats running for the House and Senate are endorsed and highly rated by GOAL. Just reaffirms my belief that you can't put labels on people or Parties. Look's like all Democrats are NOT gun-hating, bleeding heart liberals.
 
Buffalo Bill said:
Isn't it amazing that a large number of Democrats running for the House and Senate are endorsed and highly rated by GOAL. Just reaffirms my belief that you can't put labels on people or Parties. Look's like all Democrats are NOT gun-hating, bleeding heart liberals.
Click to expand...
Talking with my father-in-law and he say's a TRUE LIBERAL cannot be anti-gun. He is a liberal Dem and proud of it. He hates that it's become a dirty word. In his mind a a liberal believes in live and let live. Gun grabbers cannot be TRUE liberals.

That's his opinon and worth exactly what you and I paid for it.

Acujeff, thank you for the link to the info.
 
jacobtowne said:
It's interesting that two of the gubernatorial candidates are not rated - Gabrieli and Patrick.
JT
Click to expand...

GOAL sends a questionnaire to candidates who don't have a pro/anti-gun voting record.

If a candidate doesn't fill it in or refuses to respond to many of the questions you get the "not rated" response. I think you can draw your own conclusions in such a case . . . and it won't be in our favor!
 
Personally I don't like the GOAL rating system at all for incumbents, but I can't figure out a better one that would be fair to all.

Example: I see a number of Reps/Sen who GOAL rated "A" this time because they voted for the two watered down bills we got thru in the past few years. But I KNOW these Reps/Sen and they have admitted to my face that they are totally anti-gun! So, because they gave "an inch" (however their underlying beliefs haven't changed) we give them an "A" and mislead members to think they are our friends!!

Only solution I can see is to take their rating over their ENTIRE public life career to calculate the ratings. Anything else and we get the "subjective" overruling the true rating.

No easy solution here other than KNOW YOUR LEGISLATOR!
 
If a candidate doesn't fill it in or refuses to respond to many of the questions you get the "not rated" response. I think you can draw your own conclusions in such a case . . . and it won't be in our favor!
Click to expand...

Oh yes, I know just what conclusion to draw.
Healey and Mihos are 95%, which is probably about as good as we're going to get.

JT
 
He is correct. Most of those who call themselves "liberals" are in fact politically correct leftists or transnational leftists. They are NOT liberals in any sense of the word.

Transnational politically correct leftism is a disease that is running wild in the democratic party these days.

stoneypete said:
Talking with my father-in-law and he say's a TRUE LIBERAL cannot be anti-gun. He is a liberal Dem and proud of it. He hates that it's become a dirty word. In his mind a a liberal believes in live and let live. Gun grabbers cannot be TRUE liberals.

That's his opinon and worth exactly what you and I paid for it.

Acujeff, thank you for the link to the info.
Click to expand...
 
LenS said:
...
Only solution I can see is to take their rating over their ENTIRE public life career to calculate the ratings. Anything else and we get the "subjective" overruling the true rating.

No easy solution here other than KNOW YOUR LEGISLATOR!
Click to expand...

Definitely agree with the last part. I'd hate to be conned, and I'd hate just as much to lose somebody like CDT, simply because of his record as an HCI supporter. The problem, of course, is that some of those changes in recent years are minor concessions, while others are actual changes in outlook. There's no way to tell the real conversions from the sleepers based solely on voting records, whether recent of lifetime. You've got to do it face to face.

Ken
 
Since Christy Mihos doesn't have a shot in Hell of winning, Healey would be my choice if I lived there. For no other reason than maintaining the status quo. As I've said, gun owners in Mass. will not live long enough to see any positive change in the gun laws no matter who is elected. Both GOAL and the NRA have little, if no influence in this area. All the NRA does is badger its members constantly for money, and scream about the paranoid concept of "they're coming to take your guns", while they do little. Just imagine a Republican majority in Congress and a President and Vice President that are, supposedly, gun friendly. The fact that no major national gun legislation has been passed in six years that directly benefits us, like national reciprocity, is a disgrace. Just goes to show that the NRA is about money and politics and not action. My memberships go to effective state grassroots organizations like Gun Owners of New Hampshire and The New Hampshire Firearms Coalition. They draft legislation and get it passed.
 
BB, although I agree with most of what you said wrt NRA, it was a HUGE achievement that the Fed AWB was allowed to sunset rather than get extended again.

Sometimes winning means not losing more . . . but in this case most states actually gained back rights for real. It just doesn't matter in MA, because as you say, no real positive change will happen here anytime soon (10 years or less)!
 
The only thing a gun owner can do is support pro-gun candidates in his/her state, support national pro-gun candidates from his/her state, and vote for a pro-gun Presidential nominee. Everything else is out of your reach. None of them at the national level vote their constituents wishes anyway, they vote their own conscience. Here we are pushing for democracies around the world, and we don't even live in one, and never have. The United States is a Republic, not a Democracy. We elect representatives to vote for us on issues, we don't vote directly on most.
 
Could this be true?

I just looked at the candidate ratings in GOALS "Outdoor Message."

Can it be true that 130 out of 160 districts listed for the Massachusetts House of Reps have candidates and/or reps. who are actually rated either "A" or "B"?

The Senate doesn't have quite as strong a showing: 22 out of 40 are "A" or "B"

We really should be doing better on passing pro-gun legislation . . .
 
Thor, see my comments above about how they gave out all those A or B ratings. It's a serious case of "grade-flation" based on support (or not) of 2 bills from what I can see.
 

Similar threads

Brief Update on GOAL Litigation
Replies
1
Views
156
jek
jek
GOAL's 2024 Election Endorsements
Replies
0
Views
214
GOALJim
GOALJim
GOAL's "The Battle Continues" Dinner Event
Replies
1
Views
123
GOALJim
GOALJim
GOAL Takes on Third Suitability Case
Replies
3
Views
398
pastera
pastera
GOAL is Planning a Women's Shooting Summit
Replies
0
Views
102
GOALJim
GOALJim
Back
Top Bottom