In the senatorial, gubernatorial, and congressional races, new faces, female, minority, athletes, some succeeded some did not, where they fight neck and neck with the veterans. The Republicans seem to have given 'equal opportunities' and left them at that stage. But politics is essentially is supporting someone, not introducing someone to public. You could say, the Republicans could afford to new faces, and on the way, some went beyond the boundaries and got the Tea Party's supports. You could say that they are bold. New voices within the party could affect the party if they do not act by the principles of the freedom of the riches by equal application to tax relief, the freedom of the Wall Street, fear-driven democracy of xenophobia, and irreversible profit-diven trials on our environment.
The IT company CEO's did not make it into the senatorial and gubernatorial seats. Does it mean a slight shift in the consumer sided corporate dominance over technologies? It would be more encouraging from technical points of view when people talk about technological advancements or universal access to them rather than the financial and corporate successes. Say, London has already 95% wifi coverage in the city. When Californians and Bostonians elected Democrat governors, it would make a difference.
The question is, could a Republican with a humble background have similar opinions on education for the poor. And the answer is, although the objectives are somewhat in the close range, the compassion and sympathy etc but the output is different in a way to make the incentives in doing so. Because they are funded differently. The Republicans can not pour money into lawyers and teacher unions. Therefore, the money, the incentives will not go to schools. It will go to students as scholarships, instead of awarding schools that show better performances with funds.
In the Alaskan senatorial race, the write-in Murkowski won despite the lack of the party's supports.
The IT company CEO's did not make it into the senatorial and gubernatorial seats. Does it mean a slight shift in the consumer sided corporate dominance over technologies? It would be more encouraging from technical points of view when people talk about technological advancements or universal access to them rather than the financial and corporate successes. Say, London has already 95% wifi coverage in the city. When Californians and Bostonians elected Democrat governors, it would make a difference.
The question is, could a Republican with a humble background have similar opinions on education for the poor. And the answer is, although the objectives are somewhat in the close range, the compassion and sympathy etc but the output is different in a way to make the incentives in doing so. Because they are funded differently. The Republicans can not pour money into lawyers and teacher unions. Therefore, the money, the incentives will not go to schools. It will go to students as scholarships, instead of awarding schools that show better performances with funds.
In the Alaskan senatorial race, the write-in Murkowski won despite the lack of the party's supports.