Bloomberg's Everytown group to poll midterm politicians on 2A.

[hso]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/07/us-usa-guns-bloomberg-idUSKBN0FC16M20140707

I'm not sure what value this will add to the Antis since the Brady Campaign has done this before, but just the fact that it is getting any attention is sufficient for us to take notice.

 

[AlexanderA]

This makes things easier for us -- simply vote against any candidate with a high "Bloomberg" rating. But I don't know why he bothered -- he could have used the inverse of NRA ratings and had the same result.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...72a196-02ef-11e4-b8ff-89afd3fad6bd_story.html

 

[Jim K]

I hope the NRA does the same thing and that both groups release the results. That should smoke out some of the liars and hypocrites who try to play both sides of the issue.

Jim

 

[zxcvbob]

Don't think of it as a poll... more of an implied promise of campaign contributions if they vote "correctly"

 

[Jim K]

I am always amused by the term "campaign contribution". In an honest society, we would call it what it is, a bribe. (Sure, "campaign contributions" are subject to rules and laws and disclosure. And the tooth fairy really exists.)

Jim

 

[MErl]

Or a threat to run an attack ad. The group has shown they are very organized and have gotten a taste of victory.

 

[Old Fuff]

Like others I am looking forward to seeing this poll. We can compare it to others to determine where the candidate really stands. We know that some have two form letters, one to send to those supporting gun controls, and the other to those in favor of gun rights. In either case they say that they're on your side. This poll (if made public) could put them between a rock and a hard place, depending on how they respond.

Clearly, anyone on our side would (I hope) be unlikely to vote for someone being endorsed by Bloomberg or any of his organizations.

 

[hso]

The NFA does it with the implied threat of political pressure for politicians seeking reelection and Bloomberg is just taking the same tactic.

We need to be telling all politicians that the "poll" is a trap and will only allow Boomberg's stooges to pick and choose what answers they want to hang the official with. OTOH, NRA has played the game for long enough to know when a maybe is a better answer than a no and has history with elected officials and some trust built up.

 

[ohbythebay]

Bllombergs latest - could actually be good news

http://news.yahoo.com/bloomberg-nra-everytown-midterms-162124814.html

Everytown for Gun Safety — the grassroots group founded earlier this year by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg in an attempt to counter the National Rifle Association — is asking all federal candidates to complete a survey on gun issues ahead of the 2014 midterm elections

Reading the article (and the questions) may seem like its a bad thing...almost forces them to try and say, hmmm..the right thing ..but while it makes food rise up in my throat thinking about it, I thought about the positive.

We need to demand to know the answers...that way supporters of his crap DONT get voted for and vehemently campaigned against...Thoughts?

 

[ATLDave]

My thought is that it will contribute to the growing problem of polarization. Each of the political parties is more polarized relative to the electorate than has historically been the case. A "bad" Bloomberg rating won't hurt a GOP candidate (nobody who is for gun control is voting for the GOP in 95% of the country), but they might hurt a Democrat who has pro-gun views. The ideologically-impure are being purged from each party.

That's not good for anybody. Remember that the political pendulum swings both directions. Sometimes your party/philosophy will be up, sometimes it will be down. It's very important to have allies across the aisle when your party is on the outs. If all the pro-gun Dems get purged, gun rights will suffer immediately any time the Dems get the electoral upper hand.

 

[jerkface11]

ATLDave I think you're about 20 years too late.

 

[barnbwt]

It's very important to have allies across the aisle when your party is on the outs.

Granted, it is also historically shown that reaching across the aisle has scant and fleeting benefits, regardless the issue, and only happened in the first place because all the law makers got trashed on martini's over lunch together and became pals, instead of getting "the itis" over steak au poivre with some lobbyists (the lobbyists were down for martini's, too, but steak is a more effective persuasion tool). History has likewise shown that any support that is sought from the Democrat Party in post-war times is also scant, limited, and fleeting. It's in the official platform everyone signs on to, for cryin' out loud

What I have read, is that officials' answers will not be made public, which I think makes this an extremely dangerous and odious tactic. They are asking officials to make pacts regarding public policy in secret, and if receptive it is plain they will benefit from Mr. Bloomberg's generous campaign contributions. I think what we need to be doing is holding the feet of every official who is sent one of these forms to the fire until they release their answers to the questions.

I do have to give Everyberg credit for the phrasing of the questions; they actually are pretty well thought out and cogent queries of the policies they champion. Obviously the questions are phrased to make their policy sound "common sense" and make zero mention of any consequences, focusing exclusively on their good intentions, but the nature of the policies themselves appears to be presented in a refreshingly honest manner. A lot less emotional hogwash, slogan-ing, and anecdote-ism than is usual, as well. It pretty much reads like you'd hope our officials briefing books do; factual, measured, and selectively omissive in its bias.

TCB