Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Kerry Edwards for President

Pennsylvania 2006: Rendell vs. Swann

Recommended Posts

I am making a Pennsylvania 2006: Rendell vs. Swann. Details:

Republicans:

Mr. Lynn Swann

Lt. Governor Bill Scranton III

State Sen. Jeff Piccola

Senator Arlen Specter

Senator Rick Santorum

Rep. Phil English

Mr. Scott Reese (my dad :o )

Rep. Charlie Dent

Democrats:

Governor Ed Rendell

State Rep. T.J Rooney

State Treasurer Robert Casey

Congressman Joe Hoeffel

Auditor General Jack Wagner

Lt. Governor Catherine Baker Knoll

Dr. Bill Cosby

Mayor John Street

Mayor Tom Murphy

State Rep. Jim Casorio

Constitution Party (sadly a strong third party in PA):

Mr. Jim Clymer

Libertarians:

Mr. Ken Krawchuk

Mrs. Betsy Summers

Issues:

All the same, but Milatary Issues are replaced with Police Funding, Turnpike Worker Funding, and State Parks.

Regions:

// Note: the party names used here should match the party names used

// in the electorate_trends.p4e file (for congressionalMajority_AS

// and governorBonus_AS)

// Appalachian Region

// name_AS

Appalachian Region

// capital_AS

State College

// cityList_AS 0, 1, 2

State College

State College

State College

// nickname_AS

The Appalachian Region

// motto_AS

none

// logo_AS

scenarios//2004//states//arizona.bmp

// mapPos 0,1 x 5 - 'none' for no position

207

218

none

none

none

none

none

none

none

none

// electoralVotes

9

// population

1004705

// yearOfEntry

1950

// congressionalMajority_AS

Democratic

// governorBonus_AS

none

// abbrevPositionGeographical 0,1

207

218

// abbrevPositionElectoral 0,1

207

218

// abbreviation_AS

Ar.

// time polling occurs

// 2400 clock

1800

////////////////////////////////

// Capital Region

// name_AS

Capital Region

// capital_AS

Harrisburg

// cityList_AS 0, 1, 2

Harrisburg

Harrisburg

Harrisburg

// nickname_AS

The Capital Region

// motto_AS

none

// logo_AS

regions//alabama.bmp

// mapPos 0,1 x 5 - 'none' for no position

288

236

none

none

none

none

none

none

none

none

// electoralVotes

9

// population

1334817

// yearOfEntry

1900

// congressionalMajority_AS

Democratic

// governorBonus_AS

none

// abbrevPositionGeographical 0,1

288

236

// abbrevPositionElectoral 0,1

288

236

// abbreviation_AS

CaR.

// time polling occurs, PST

// 2400 clock

1800

////////////////////////////////

// Coal Region

// name_AS

Coal Region

// capital_AS

Scranton

// cityList_AS 0, 1, 2

Scranton

Moscow

Scranton

// nickname_AS

The Coal Region

// motto_AS

none

// logo_AS

scenarios//2004//states//alaska.bmp

// mapPos 0,1 x 5 - 'none' for no position

367

165

none

none

none

none

none

none

none

none

// electoralVotes

9

// population

671930

// yearOfEntry

1950

// congressionalMajority_AS

Democratic

// governorBonus_AS

none

// abbrevPositionGeographical 0,1

367

165

// abbrevPositionElectoral 0,1

367

165

// abbreviation_AS

CoR.

// time polling occurs

// 2400 clock

2100

////////////////////////////////

// Erie Region

// name_AS

Erie Region

// capital_AS

Erie

// cityList_AS 0, 1, 2

Erie

Erie

Erie

// nickname_AS

Erie Region

// motto_AS

none

// logo_AS

scenarios//2004//states//arizona.bmp

// mapPos 0,1 x 5 - 'none' for no position

96

112

none

none

none

none

none

none

none

none

// electoralVotes

9

// population

1112931

// yearOfEntry

1950

// congressionalMajority_AS

Democratic

// governorBonus_AS

none

// abbrevPositionGeographical 0,1

96

112

// abbrevPositionElectoral 0,1

96

112

// abbreviation_AS

Er.

// time polling occurs

// 2400 clock

1800

////////////////////////////////

// Hispanic Pennsylvania

// name_AS

Hispanic Pennsylvania

// capital_AS

Lancaster

// cityList_AS 0, 1, 2

Lancaster

Lancaster

Lancaster

// nickname_AS

Hispanic Pennsylvania

// motto_AS

none

// logo_AS

scenarios//2004//states//arkansas.bmp

// mapPos 0,1 x 5 - 'none' for no position

349

245

none

none

none

none

none

none

none

none

// electoralVotes

9

// population

990734

// yearOfEntry

1900

// congressionalMajority_AS

Democratic

// governorBonus_AS

none

// abbrevPositionGeographical 0,1

349

245

// abbrevPositionElectoral 0,1

349

245

// abbreviation_AS

Hp.

// time polling occurs

// 2400 clock

1730

////////////////////////////////

// Northern Region

// name_AS

Northern Region

// capital_AS

Wellsboro

// cityList_AS 0, 1, 2

Wellsboro

Montroe

Coudersport

// nickname_AS

The Norhtern Region

// motto_AS

none

// logo_AS

scenarios//2004//states//california.bmp

// mapPos 0,1 x 5 - 'none' for no position

273

114

none

none

none

none

none

none

none

none

// electoralVotes

9

// population

444918

// yearOfEntry

1930

// congressionalMajority_AS

Democratic

// governorBonus_AS

none

// abbrevPositionGeographical 0,1

273

114

// abbrevPositionElectoral 0,1

273

114

// abbreviation_AS

Nr.

// time polling occurs

// 2400 clock

2000

////////////////////////////////

// Philadelphia

// name_AS

Philadelphia

// capital_AS

Philadelphia

// cityList_AS 0, 1, 2

Philadelphia

Philadelphia

Philadelphia

// nickname_AS

The City Philadelphia

// motto_AS

none

// logo_AS

scenarios//2004//states//colorado.bmp

// mapPos 0,1 x 5 - 'none' for no position

408

257

none

none

none

none

none

none

none

none

// electoralVotes

10

// population

3875021

// yearOfEntry

1930

// congressionalMajority_AS

Democratic

// governorBonus_AS

none

// abbrevPositionGeographical 0,1

408

257

// abbrevPositionElectoral 0,1

408

257

// abbreviation_AS

Ph.

// time polling occurs

// 2400 clock

1800

////////////////////////////////

// Pittsburgh Region

// name_AS

Pittsburgh Region

// capital_AS

Pittsburgh

// cityList_AS 0, 1, 2

Pittsburgh

Greensburg

Coraopolis

// nickname_AS

The Pittsburgh Region

// motto_AS

none

// logo_AS

scenarios//2004//states//connecticut.bmp

// mapPos 0,1 x 5 - 'none' for no position

107

246

none

none

none

none

none

none

none

none

// electoralVotes

9

// population

2020332

// yearOfEntry

1800

// congressionalMajority_AS

Democratic

// governorBonus_AS

none

// abbrevPositionGeographical 0,1

107

246

// abbrevPositionElectoral 0,1

107

246

// abbreviation_AS

PiR.

// time polling occurs

// 2400 clock

1700

////////////////////////////////

// Poconos Region

// name_AS

Poconos Region

// capital_AS

Milford

// cityList_AS 0, 1, 2

Honesdale

Milford

Palmerton

// nickname_AS

The Poconos Region

// motto_AS

none

// logo_AS

scenarios//2004//states//delaware.bmp

// mapPos 0,1 x 5 - 'none' for no position

420

159

none

none

none

none

none

none

none

none

// electoralVotes

9

// population

594050

// yearOfEntry

1800

// congressionalMajority_AS

Democratic

// governorBonus_AS

none

// abbrevPositionGeographical 0,1

420

159

// abbrevPositionElectoral 0,1

420

159

// abbreviation_AS

PoR.

// time polling occurs

// 2400 clock

1700

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ya he understands the problems of his people but doesn't have any solutions he insults black people because the parents aren't raising there children to his standards but doesn't recognize the economic and social reasons behind this

this man is an idiot and i truely believe he has lost his mind and i have no respect for a person that just insults the way people are raising there own children and yet has no answers or solutions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats an a matter of opinion some see AA as a way of making up for 300 years of slavery

but if he doesn't like AA i odn't care thats his opinion my problem is that he failed to think of an alternate solution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill Cosby wasn't talking about affirmative action when he made his remarks late last month, criticizing the failure of some African Americans to meet standards of decent behavior. But it should surprise no one that those most unhappy with Cosby's criticism are the people most enamored of preferences based on race and ethnicity.

There are really two principles at stake in the current debate over racial and ethnic preferences or, more broadly, civil rights, or, more broadly still, racial and ethnic relations. The first is whether we ought to encourage discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity; the second is whether we ought to allow discrimination on the basis of merit.

Once upon a time, the Left opposed racial discrimination. It argued that it was unfair to let racial considerations trump qualifications based on merit. The principle of nondiscrimination carried the day in the 1960s, and it was enshrined into law in various statutes. But these statutes have not resulted in proportional representation for some groups, particularly African Americans, at the upper reaches of our elites. And so now, ironically, it is the Left that pushes racial preferences and denigrates merit.

There are both charitable and uncharitable ways to explain this. The charitable explanation is that the Left cares so deeply about integration that it is willing to sacrifice or bend considerations of merit. If you insist on integration, and merit stands in the way, then you must sacrifice merit. The less charitable explanation is that the Left has never been comfortable — or, perhaps, with the ascendancy of deconstructionists and other certain kinds of Leftists, it has become less comfortable — with the whole notion of merit.

As African Americans disproportionately failed to succeed, in any event, excuses were made. Once upon a time, segregation and institutionalized discrimination were serious, formidable, ubiquitous obstacles. Removing them improved blacks' status and opportunities, but other obstacles remained, or grew, like illegitimacy, crime, substance abuse, and failing to make the most of the greater opportunities given. To attack these problems, however, was not in the Left's repertoire; it was "blaming the victim." It was easier to continue to blame discrimination, present and past — even if present discrimination is dramatically and undeniably less, and even if the legacy of past discrimination must be exaggerated. And the Left also started to attack merit itself.

I am using "merit" broadly to mean "standards" of all kinds. I am not saying that reasonable people cannot differ about whether high-school grades are more or less important than SAT scores in predicting academic performance in college, to give an obvious example. The Left likes to paint the opponents of preferences as wishing to make university admissions mechanically. This is not so. Choose whatever standards you like, but do so honestly and apply them equally to all. But one suspects that a significant part of the Left really doesn't want standards, period.

They don't like the SAT, of course, and they really don't like the whole notion that some individuals are thought to be smarter or to work harder than others. They love making it illegal for employers and educators to use selection criteria that have a "disparate impact" on minority groups — having a high-school diploma, for instance — no matter that the criteria are neutral on their face, as applied, and as intended, and were adopted for nondiscriminatory reasons. They don't like laws that say convicted criminals can't vote, even those still in prison.

They love multiculturalism. The relativists favor multiculturalism because they don't believe that one culture can be superior to another. They oppose assimilation for the same reason. Assimilation can be favored only if we believe that one culture is preferable to others and ought to be dominant.

So long as applicants meet "a minimum test score," liberal civil-rights professor Lani Guinier is happy to have university admissions made by "what is in effect a lottery for admission among the applicants who meet the minimum standard." Of course. This makes it statistically certain that no group will be "underrepresented" or "overrepresented," whether that group is racial, ethnic, sexual, whatever (so long as they all apply in the right proportions). The only problem is that the less qualified are as likely to get in as the more qualified. But if you reject the whole concept of qualifications, then what does that matter?

Well, there are in fact many problems with this kind of egalitarianism. By not rewarding talent and industry, we fail to encourage them. There are, likewise, benefits to a stratified higher education system. It better ensures that each student can have the most demanded of him or her, can be given an environment most tailor-made to his or her potential. Society — as well as the individuals involved — ultimately reaps the rewards when hard work and industry are rewarded. And society will suffer if we refuse to acknowledge differences between, say, criminals and non-criminals — those who steal "pound cake" and those who don't, in Cosby's words.

It is wrong to discriminate on the basis of race and ethnicity; it is foolish not to discriminate on the basis of merit. And so the Left's program of favoring the former and opposing the latter is both wrong and foolish. Whatever Cosby's views on affirmative action, he believes in merit, and that is enough to make many people uncomfortable.

— Roger Clegg is general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity in Sterling, Virginia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×