Election results --no skiing content

The election night vote counts released by the Texas Secretary of State and posted at https://team1.sos.state.tx.us/enr/results/nov04_175_state.htm show James Arthur Strohm polling 38,592 votes, or 20.02% in Texas Senate District 14.

Those numbers may shift slightly as absentee and provisional ballots are counted. Multiply Strohm's total by 4 to get Kirk Watson's approximate total..

It's more compelling to consider how much was spent per vote by the two gentlemen on the ballot. Neither candidate did diddley-squat as far as actual campaigning. If anything, Strohm was the more active candidate because he responded to more surveys and questionnaires than Watson, his incumbent opponent.

The following figures include all reports filed in 2014, but not reports for expenditures through election day. Some 2013 expenses are included; the Texas Senate has a four-year term so all expenses for this election cycle are not included. Only reports filed by both candidates are compared.

Watson's total expenditures for 2014 reporting to date exceed half a million dollars.

Strohm spent $6.31. For his whole campaign, start to finish.

That is $0.000164 spent per vote.

Watson spent somewhere north of $3.25 per vote, or about 20,000 times more per vote.

Final financial reports will be available online in a few weeks from the Texas Ethics Commission http://www.ethics.state.tx.us/ .

If you wonder why Libertarians scare the other parties so much, this is a perfect example of why. We do so much more for so much less, if we were to come into power, all the political consultants and other parasites would be out of a job. And we'd run our offices like we run our campaigns, with saving our constituents' money at every step.

We wouldn't just drown big government in the bathtub (thank you, Grover Norquist, for that wonderful image), we'd also bury the remains in the compost heap to grow our non-Monsanto organic heirloom tomatoes next year.


Ob-ski content: With government mandated costs removed from ski areas, you could expect to see a 10 to 20% reduction in the cost of your lift tickets..



P.S. That vote total is the same as having 38,592 people "like" you on a social network in just 12 hours.

On 05/11/2014 17:35, wrote:
The election night vote counts released by the Texas Secretary of State and posted at https://team1.sos.state.tx.us/enr/results/nov04_175_state.htm show James Arthur Strohm polling 38,592 votes, or 20.02% in Texas Senate District 14.

Those numbers may shift slightly as absentee and provisional ballots are counted. Multiply Strohm's total by 4 to get Kirk Watson's approximate total..

It's more compelling to consider how much was spent per vote by the two gentlemen on the ballot. Neither candidate did diddley-squat as far as actual campaigning. If anything, Strohm was the more active candidate because he responded to more surveys and questionnaires than Watson, his incumbent opponent.

The following figures include all reports filed in 2014, but not reports for expenditures through election day. Some 2013 expenses are included; the Texas Senate has a four-year term so all expenses for this election cycle are not included. Only reports filed by both candidates are compared.

Watson's total expenditures for 2014 reporting to date exceed half a million dollars.

Strohm spent $6.31. For his whole campaign, start to finish.

That is $0.000164 spent per vote.

Watson spent somewhere north of $3.25 per vote, or about 20,000 times more per vote.

Final financial reports will be available online in a few weeks from the Texas Ethics Commission http://www.ethics.state.tx.us/ .

If you wonder why Libertarians scare the other parties so much, this is a perfect example of why. We do so much more for so much less, if we were to come into power, all the political consultants and other parasites would be out of a job. And we'd run our offices like we run our campaigns, with saving our constituents' money at every step.

We wouldn't just drown big government in the bathtub (thank you, Grover Norquist, for that wonderful image), we'd also bury the remains in the compost heap to grow our non-Monsanto organic heirloom tomatoes next year.


Ob-ski content: With government mandated costs removed from ski areas, you could expect to see a 10 to 20% reduction in the cost of your lift tickets..



P.S. That vote total is the same as having 38,592 people "like" you on a social network in just 12 hours.


Well done Jim. Based on the previous result and now this one I think
you're on target for a landslide win at the next election

On 11/5/14 8:35 AM, wrote:
Ob-ski content: With government mandated costs removed from ski areas, you could expect to see a 10 to 20% reduction in the cost of your lift tickets.

What "government mandated costs" are you planning to remove? Lift
inspections? Payments for commercial use of publicly owned property i.e.
Forest Service land owned by you and me equally?

(PS If you did happen to get elected I'd like you to legislate to the
effect it's a federal crime to deny public backcountry access anywhere a
resort abuts Forest Service land.)

On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 11:59:59 AM UTC-6, lal_truckee wrote:
On 11/5/14 8:35 AM, wrote:
Ob-ski content: With government mandated costs removed from ski areas, you could expect to see a 10 to 20% reduction in the cost of your lift tickets.

What "government mandated costs" are you planning to remove? Lift
inspections? Payments for commercial use of publicly owned property i.e.
Forest Service land owned by you and me equally?

(PS If you did happen to get elected I'd like you to legislate to the
effect it's a federal crime to deny public backcountry access anywhere a
resort abuts Forest Service land.)

Let's see ... most environmental restrictions, most OSHA requirements, most employment restrictions, for starters. I'm not well-versed on the subject but I'm confident that with a copy of the Federal budget and a few weeks to search I could come up with a huge stack of Federal cuts.

But -- I'm a state-level candidate for now, and Texas doesn't have any ski areas besides privately owned steep driveways that abut publicly maintained steep roads and other rights-of-way, and then only when there's an ice storm.


Ob-ski content -- with the current storm traversing Texas, we're seeing snow accumulations greater than 18 inches at elevations above 8500 feet.

wrote:
The election night vote counts released by the Texas Secretary of State
and posted at https://team1.sos.state.tx.us/enr/results/nov04_175_state.htm show James
Arthur Strohm polling 38,592 votes, or 20.02% in Texas Senate District 14.

Those numbers may shift slightly as absentee and provisional ballots are
counted. Multiply Strohm's total by 4 to get Kirk Watson's approximate total.

It's more compelling to consider how much was spent per vote by the two
gentlemen on the ballot. Neither candidate did diddley-squat as far as
actual campaigning. If anything, Strohm was the more active candidate
because he responded to more surveys and questionnaires than Watson, his
incumbent opponent.

The following figures include all reports filed in 2014, but not reports
for expenditures through election day. Some 2013 expenses are included;
the Texas Senate has a four-year term so all expenses for this election
cycle are not included. Only reports filed by both candidates are compared.

Watson's total expenditures for 2014 reporting to date exceed half a million dollars.

Strohm spent $6.31. For his whole campaign, start to finish.

That is $0.000164 spent per vote.

Watson spent somewhere north of $3.25 per vote, or about 20,000 times more per vote.

Final financial reports will be available online in a few weeks from the
Texas Ethics Commission http://www.ethics.state.tx.us/ .

If you wonder why Libertarians scare the other parties so much, this is a
perfect example of why. We do so much more for so much less, if we were
to come into power, all the political consultants and other parasites
would be out of a job. And we'd run our offices like we run our
campaigns, with saving our constituents' money at every step.

We wouldn't just drown big government in the bathtub (thank you, Grover
Norquist, for that wonderful image), we'd also bury the remains in the
compost heap to grow our non-Monsanto organic heirloom tomatoes next year.


Ob-ski content: With government mandated costs removed from ski areas,
you could expect to see a 10 to 20% reduction in the cost of your lift tickets.



P.S. That vote total is the same as having 38,592 people "like" you on a
social network in just 12 hours.

I will tell you one thing, you will never be elected for stating that
Charles Manson was right about "Helter Skelter", and it is no surprise that
there 38,592 idiots who voted for a guy, who stated many of the crazy
libertarian ideas that don't work in a nation with over 300 million people,
and is modern complex OECD nation.

If you want to be elected, you need to disavowed many of the racist ideas
and people that surround the Libertarian Movement in the US.

On Wed, 5 Nov 2014 10:11:07 -0800 (PST), wrote
this crap:

Let's see ... most environmental restrictions, most OSHA requirements,
most employment restrictions, for starters. I'm not well-versed
on the subject but I'm confident that with a copy of the Federal
budget and a few weeks to search I could come up with a
huge stack of Federal cuts.

A few weeks? I could cut a billion dollars out of the budget in one
day.

This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 1:20:07 PM UTC-6, wrote:

You, (an unknown from Texas) are going up against a 12 term incumbent
democrap in Queens? I don't think you've thought this out.

FROM Queens, not IN Queens.

He's my state rep. For state offices in Texas, you have to live in the district of the office you seek.

On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 1:20:07 PM UTC-6, wrote:
On Wed, 5 Nov 2014 09:56:43 -0800 (PST), wrote

You, (an unknown from Texas) are going up against a 12 term incumbent
democrap in Queens? I don't think you've thought this out.


FROM Queens, not IN Queens. He's my state rep. For state offices in Texas, you have to live in the district for the office you seek.

All things considered, I don't think I'd ever even VISIT New York again, much live there long enough to be eligible to run for office there.

On Wed, 5 Nov 2014 11:31:22 -0800 (PST),
wrote this crap:

On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 1:20:07 PM UTC-6, wrote:

You, (an unknown from Texas) are going up against a 12 term incumbent
democrap in Queens? I don't think you've thought this out.

FROM Queens, not IN Queens.

Your mistake. You weren't clear. So you do have a snowball's chance
in Texas.

This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Wed, 5 Nov 2014 11:35:26 -0800 (PST), wrote
this crap:

On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 1:20:07 PM UTC-6, wrote:
On Wed, 5 Nov 2014 09:56:43 -0800 (PST), wrote

You, (an unknown from Texas) are going up against a 12 term incumbent
democrap in Queens? I don't think you've thought this out.


FROM Queens, not IN Queens. He's my state rep.
For state offices in Texas, you have to live in the
district for the office you seek.

All things considered, I don't think I'd ever even VISIT New
York again, much live there long enough to be eligible to
run for office there.

I don't know what part of NY you were in. I loved Manhattan and I
would live there anytime.

This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe