There are legally assaulted?

Like FAT CAT Oil Companies get richer by the day, the average American is working harder and longer for less money. Hello !!!!! What's wrong with this picture ????? How long can this go on!

In late July, all oil companies reported massive jumps in their sales and profit. It is helpful proceeds LEGALLY MUGGING the American public? Let's take a look at the facts.

Two of the three major world oil companies, Exxon, Mobil and Shell have recently published the combined second quarter profits of just under 18 billion U.S. dollars at record high prices on crude oil. Both companies have exceeded market expectations. Nice, as long as they are not (the average American struggle) to make ends meet.

Exxon Mobil and maintained a 12% increase in revenues to $ 99 billion. The first time a U.S. company had exceeded one billion U.S. dollars a day for one quarter of trading. While I was filling the tank, I remember thinking how happy I was that little 'history.

This second quarter has shaped the richest ever for three months the six largest oil companies. ConocoPhillips, the third largest U.S. oil company, was pleased to say that profits jumped 65% to a record 5.19 billion. The Energy Department in Washington reported that U.S. retail prices rose by 30% over last year.

There is no other industry can get away with this kind of behavior. At the first sign of any problem anywhere in the world, raised the price of gas and paying for this, do as the Americans. We are told by our leaders that oil companies are (protect) their margins. Get a clue --- record revenues and profits is not (for protection) is MUGGING LEGALIZATIONS margins of the American public, pure and simple.

One might think that our leaders would want to protect the great American public from this type of suffering, but it would be wrong. We never seem to be far away from another election and election campaigns cost money Big Money. Enter the oil companies with very deep pockets. All the time, we, as people continue to allow politicians to spend such obscene amounts of money for their campaigns will always subject to the power of these special interest groups.

PLEASE someone explain to me how they can justify spending tens of millions of dollars on a polling station in the Senate and hundreds of millions for the presidential election? After all these jobs only pay a few hundred thousand dollars a year in salaries to the fullest. What you get for this money? Answer: the lies and smiles. All promise to make a difference and do - WE always seem to end up worst off.

Would not it be nice if politicians pay was linked to productivity and results! Wonder how many of them would work, then?

Have an opinion or a question I like answering, then write me!

Stage being present at mid-term elections and the stock market

Connecticut 18 years Senator Joes Lieberman has failed to win his own party primary for reelection. The figures are almost final, and country club liberal Ned Lamont defeated Senator by 52% to 48%. The actual voting date has 142,000 votes to 136,000 votes. How did Lamont have done and what it means for the country in elections next November, and financial markets?

Lieberman self-imploded to be in touch with its base. What makes the most surprising result is that he is one of only three sitting U.S. senators to deny the nomination of his party in the last 25 years. It 'was his party's candidate for the vice presidency of the United States only six years ago. This is a man running for the presidency itself only two years ago. In her mind when she ran for the presidency had to believe he was going to win the nomination, otherwise he would not even try. How does a man like this who has spent his entire life in politics, let them be swept away by a novice, who was the contact with life every day for life?

One thing is to support the policies of President Bush. It 's another to appear to be welcoming, and partly at the hip, with a sitting president who has 58% disapproval rating among the American people. The first thing we must realize is that the primary was never about Ned Lamont. Mr Lamont appears as a physically attractive, affable individual. He is a descendant of the Trust Fund, which traces its roots to his great grandfather Thomas William Lamont, who was a partner of JP Morgan and Company, when Mr. Morgan was the most powerful banker in the financial world. Ned Lamont was educated at America's best private schools including Harvard and Yale, where there are buildings named for members of his family. He lives in Greenwich, CT., A rich, isolated communities, if there ever was one.

It was fascinating to see Ned Lamont declared victory with three African-Americans behind standing right behind him, two of which are household names, the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Reverend Al Sharpton. What made it even more interesting is that Greenwich must have the smallest percentage of African Americans among its inhabitants together in any city of its size in America. The policy is actually imitating art.

How did Lamont have done? First, the wrong question, he did not get done. This campaign is the product of Internet bloggers absolutely brilliant Liberal injury which gave rise to the grass roots to go out and defeat Lieberman. Lamont would be a one-eyed, pirate PEG legs, and the Liberals would play the same way. These bloggers mobilized young people including foreigners, and others to enter into silence in Connecticut, and unseat the conservative sitting Democratic Senator, Mr. Lieberman. Thousands of independent voters were persuaded to move from independent to Democrat to vote in this primary. Thousands more were recorded for the first time.

It 'was a brilliant, well-orchestrated, and eventually effective way to go. It shows the union of the Internet, and people's power. And 'the beginning of the next wave of politics. And 'as decisive, and perhaps more decisive than the advent of television and the transformation of the presidency when President John Kennedy became the first candidate to use that medium effectively. The day of the defeat of Joe Lieberman is the turning point of a new American policy based on the power of the Internet.

I think this a positive use of power. Mr. Lamont is irrelevant for this event. What is important is that the money will be raised by the Internet giant, on behalf of candidates. I sincerely hope that this dwarf the money that is given by lobbyists who essentially have controlled this country for years. These lobbyists do not act in the interests of the people, but in the interests of certain isolated, wealthy, powerful interest groups. These groups want what they want, without any thought to the needs of mainstream America.

Both our political parties are in the grip of these private interests. The interests are different for each party, but just as powerful. Is there any conservative Republican in his heart of hearts believe that the current Congress is the philosophy of the conservative Republican? Barry Goldwater, Mr. Conservative would turn in his grave if he saw what the current Congress has passed in terms of legislation, and the unprecedented amount of debt that has accumulated on the future of our children. At the same time, liberals do not have a viable alternative and that is why they lost power during the 1994 congressional election campaign.

What does this mean for financial markets in the U.S.? I suspect at least, the Democrats will resume seats in both houses of Congress next November. The party traditionally takes the same power. With the tailwind of Iraq to back the Democrats, if they had any coherent plan of action, they would take both houses of Congress. I have yet to see such a plan, and the smart money says it's more likely that they will have a house, since the Democrats are still trying to figure out what they believe.

It is more likely to adopt the House of Representatives, and this then gives the chairmen of various committees NEW Democratic House the power of subpoena. The Democrats will exercise that power in an attempt to undermine the sitting President, and will actually do so. At least, this stagnation of the means at the other end, a step toward impeachment, probably on groups of violating the constitutional right. They relate to privacy through wiretapping and the National Security Agency. Regarding financial markets, they'd jam to return.

Apart from that tens of billions of dollars needed for insurance companies to act as an intermediary in a national pharmaceutical program for the elderly do not deserve control of three branches of government. A party that has so badly mismanaged the situation in Iraq does not deserve control of three branches of government. A party that creates tax cuts is good in my opinion, but not a party that borrows hundreds of billions of dollars from foreigners. It then gives the money to the wealthy class in America as tax cuts, leaving the debt with your children. This party does not deserve to control three branches of government. Financial markets will pick up this and respond positively to the return of gridlock.

It 'will be fascinating to see how poor Joe Lieberman has begun, and among other things, would not be surprising to see the following scenario. The Republican candidate for Senator from Connecticut to waive the application. The Republicans nominate Joe Lieberman in his place, while also running on the Independent line. Poor Joe the end, after all, is re-elected in November.

Good luck
Richard Stoyeck

And 'Last Comic Standing Homeland Security?

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the fruit of this current administration, has an operating budget for 2006 of 40.6 billion U.S. dollars. After three years and more than 100 billion dollars, we really reached the point were we can sleep better at night knowing that our "leaders" are doing everything to protect us against terrorists Those attacks.

According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), nothing has changed since the beginning of the DHS in 2003. During their recent test of nine border posts in the United States: California, Texas, Arizona, Michigan, New York, Washington and Idaho, the GAO investigators were able to penetrate all nine border crossings with fake IDs and fake names.

Terrorists or criminals can "pass freely in the United States ... with little or no chance of being discovered," the GAO concluded in testimony to the Senate finance committee. The researchers used readily available computers and software to create these fake driving licenses and documents. None of Customs and Border Protection agents "never questioned the authenticity of the forged documents." The GAO also said similar tests in 2003 produced similar results.

According to DHS, which has trained border agents to detect forged documents and agents intercepted more than 75,000 last year, but the work is complicated by the variety of legitimate documents. More than 8,000 are used to enter the country, including easy to falsify, licenses and birth certificates.

So let me be sure I understand this: three years, 100 billion U.S. dollars, the complete erosion of our civil liberties, an infringement of our privacy during phone calls, monitoring our bank accounts and arrest citizens, denying them the assistance legal, but still the test results are the same as 2003. I'm missing something here or is the DHS's largest joke ever played on the American public.

Why is it that whenever we get close to a budget or an increase in funding for DHS at the hearing of the Senate Finance, the Committee seems to have suddenly bombarded with new threats from terrorists or new information in a pending attack? Do you really think that we are all so stupid or is it just that they have so little respect for us, but I do not care!

So what we got for our money and the loss of civil liberties? Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security, applauded the increased funding and changes to the Department of Homeland Security organization during a ceremony at the White House in October last year where President Bush signed the 2006 Homeland Security Appropriations Act . He outlined an integrated management preparation to improve the coordination and implementation of preparedness activities and training at a cost of $ 4 billion.

What were they doing in the last three years? Secretary Chertoff earlier this year, outlined a new six-point program which included the following: the creation of an Office of Intelligence and Analysis to be led by a chief intelligence officer and raising the component separating information analysis of IAIP. Wow this sounds important. He also wants to establish an Office of Operations, which will include the Homeland Security Operations Center. Then there is the Office of Policy and the Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs.

Now I'm sure there must be a department that DHS has a way of operating licenses Stupid Training for departments to increase funding.

Have an opinion or a question I like answering, then write me!

Guide to Election Night for the Non-Political Junkie

Although not a political junkie like me, you will still probably be glued to your TV set on election night. Obviously, you will be waiting to see if President George W. Bush will be elected or if Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts will become our 44th President. Will see and hear everything that is interesting night? It will also make sense to you? Well, if all you want and find out who wins, you may be a long and tedious night. Volumes of information will be presented the night before a winner is declared. However, if you know a few things to try, this material could make a lot more sense and actually be interesting.

First, you must be aware that there is only one person will focus on the national popular vote, that the total votes cast for each candidate at the national level. Because this does not determine who wins - the electoral votes do. In every state except Maine, Nebraska, Colorado and perhaps (later), the winner of that state receives all its electoral votes. Maine press their congressional district, with the winner going to the other two was that, overall. Nebraska awards its electoral votes proportionally, based on the percentage of popular vote each candidate receives in that state.

The number of electoral votes each state has is determined by totaling the number of its congressional districts for the number of its senators. The number of congressional districts each state has is based on its population. More populous states like California and Texas have far more congressional districts are not the most sparsely populated states like Wyoming or Vermont. However, each state has at least one congressional district, no matter how small its population. Each state has exactly two senators. Therefore, each state has at least three electoral votes. In addition to all states, the District of Columbia is allocated three electoral votes, although not voting members to Congress.

Many people believe that the electoral college, the system of electoral votes to determine the outcome of the presidential election, is inherently unjust and should be abolished in favor of a system in which the winner is determined solely by the national popular vote. Sure, it would take a constitutional change to happen. Therefore, the Electoral College is here to stay. Although this change may get the required two-thirds margin in the House and Senate, would never be able to obtain the necessary three-fourths of state legislatures. There were too many children who would be strongly opposed to it, considering that the electoral college allows them to be "actors" in the presidential election campaign that would not be a purely popular vote system. These small states fear that it would be totally ignored by presidential candidates, without the electoral college. I am afraid they are right.

Many states will "call", a projected winner of that state will be announced by news organizations as soon as polls close in these states. This can be done fairly accurately with the use of exit polls, a process whereby voters are asked about their decision as they are exiting their polling stations. If the exit poll sample only from a particular state shows a clear victory for a candidate, call the state when its polls close. If the exit polls show that a given state is too close to call, you wait long enough the actual vote count is before you call in that state. Exit polls are sometimes wrong, though. The most famous example was in Florida in 2000, when he was called for Gore based on exit polling data and some of the actual results. After most of the actual results began to arrive, however, news organizations soon began to realize things may not go to Florida, the way he had planned, so that soon retracted their call and the state ultimately is went to Bush.

Incidentally, people who say they never believe the exit polls (polls or politicians in general) will offer two main criticisms of them. The first is: "They've never asked." In reality, very few voters ever contacted by pollsters. Only a very small sample of voters is required to obtain a reasonably accurate result, provided it is random enough and varied enough among all demographic groups, geographic areas, etc. To use an analogy that I often heard, is not necessary to Drinking a glass of tea together to discover whether or not it sweet. Just a taste will have, assuming the glass was mixed correctly. The other criticism is: "They ask questions deliberately misleading and confusing." This is true enough for many political polls. However, the main question raised during the polarization of output is: "To whom did you vote?". I wonder what part of the claim that people would not understand.

As states are called, their electoral votes are placed in column one candidate. Also, look for any news organization to use a map of the United States, beginning with each state depicted as white. As the State is called for Bush, its color changed to red, as was called for Kerry, his color changed to blue, then red states and blue states. Look for Kentucky to be the first called. That state closes its polls at 6:00 Eastern Time and will almost certainly fall into the Bush column. Once a candidate reaches 270 or more electoral votes will be declared the winner, regardless of the total popular vote or how many red states or blue has won.

If Bush wins all the states he won in 2000 and no more, will win with a margin larger (277-261) in the constituency which he won last time (271-267). In fact, he could lose one of its smaller states like New Hampshire, without picking up that Gore won, and still win the election. This is because, based on the 2000 census, the population has shifted a bit 'and six seats in Congress (and the same amount of electoral votes) have shifted from "Gore" states to "Bush said.

The key states to watch throughout the evening will be the "battleground" states. The candidate who wins most of these were probably win the election. By most estimates, these states are New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Florida, West Virginia, Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Colorado and New Mexico. Most other states are assumed in the column of one candidate or another. As a general rule, Bush should be strong in the south, southwest, west and mountains and prairies. Kerry seems to be strong in the northeast, upper Midwest and along the Pacific coast. I see no farther west state of New Mexico, Colorado, or be a major deciding factor. E 'already assumed that California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii will all go for Kerry, while Alaska will go for Bush.

Colorado may be the most controversial this time, but only if everything falls right. There is a initiative on the Colorado ballot to issue its electoral votes proportionally instead of giving all nine of them the winner, as happens today. If approved, this would go into effect immediately with this election. Since the race in Colorado is expected to be close, the results of this measure would effectively take four electoral votes away from winning the state and give them a loser. Therefore, if the measure passes and the candidate who wins Colorado loses the election with less than nine electoral votes, the measure will cost the election candidates. Obviously, a big legal battle would ensue if that happened.

A final item to watch on election night is the battle for control of the House and Senate. The Republicans currently hold a slim margin in both houses. Several key victories, or pick-up, with the Democrats could change things for them in a house or maybe both. Conversely, some pick-up by the Republicans could increase their margin in one or both of the home. key races that could go in either case will be closely monitored throughout the evening.

Bush Panders America's Kids to Saudi pederasts

electronic redistribution and reproduction of the paper are permitted, provided not to change the file, or your suggested changes were approved by the author in writing. About 1,000 words.

Bush Panders America's Kids to Saudi pederasts

Dr. David Chanan

President Bush and Colin Powell should hang their heads in shame. The administration professes to value America children and touts the phrase "No Child Left Behind." At the same time, they have abandoned some 16,000 American children abroad.

According to Joel Mowbray's book on "Dangerous Diplomacy," the children were kidnapped from their parents and held in foreign countries, like Saudi Arabia. Saudis are world class perverts. What is called child molestation in the United States is called marriage in Saudi Arabia. What kind of protection of American people?

Two stories (many) Mowbray quotes the testimony to Congress to make the point.

A woman named Monica Stowers married a Saudi named Radwan. They had two children, a boy, Rasheed, and a girl, Amjad. Mowbray says his father abused children, but not how. In testimony to Congress, said Stowers is the children who have been raped by her father's relatives.

Under Saudi law, a husband was allowed to give a wife to enter or leave the country. Stowers came Arabia Arabia has collected her children and fled to the U.S. Embassy for help.

Embassy of the United States, the General Counsel, Karla Reed, Stowers said that the embassy was not a hotel. Reed ordered the Marine guards to throw the kids outside. So the Marines dumped her on the sidewalk. The mother and son on.

By the next morning, Amjad was locked in her father's house. The mother and brother were hiding. Over time, Stowers was imprisoned, and Rasheed had fled. The U.S. Embassy Stowers left to rot in jail, but a friend saved outside Arabia.

Ultimately, Rasheed paid $ 20,000 to be smuggled outside the country. She made her way to New York City, and touched the World Trade Center. The same year, Amjad, 12, was married to a Saudi. She ran away and hid with his mother. They lived in an abandoned school.

Amjad's grandmother has testified to Congress about the situation in 2002. A congressional delegation went to Saudi Arabia Amjad and fourteen for other children. At that point, Amjad was married to another Saudi. He met with a member of Congress and was able to obtain an exit visa.

Amjad has tried to leave Saudi Arabia in February 2003. The Saudis arrested her because she had her husband's permission. The State Department did nothing to get her out. Continue to do nothing, or to Amjad for others.

Margaret McClain married a Saudi man named Alomari. He was abused for two years. They had a daughter, Heidi, in the third year of their marriage. The abuse got worse, and McClain obtained a protection order against Alomari. Gotta visit unattended in divorce, despite being a bigamist.

Alomari had sexually molested his daughter when she was three, but police could not make the case. Heidi has abducted and brought to Saudi Arabia. The State Department did nothing.

Through its investigation, McClain Alomari learned where he lived. The State Department dawdled for two years before a consular officer has asked to see Heidi in person.

Three years later, McClain could see his daughter in Saudi Arabia. They visited together for three hours at McDonald's in Riyadh. It was the month of July, 2002.

Is a State of Arkansas and a federal warrant for arrest differ Alomari's. The State Department has dithered since then.

Stowers and obviously McClain testified before Congress.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, former man of honor to appear, and President Bush, a professed Christian, can not claim ignorance of their cases. They know.

Powell is committed to the state. Bush is responsible for the executive. They know.

Who do nothing is shameful.

As Secretary of State, Powell has stained his honor. He should remain a soldier.

As for President Bush ...

I can not understand how a man idles Christian as Christian children are raped.

I can not understand how a man idles Christian as Christian children are forced to become Muslims.

I can not understand how American evangelicals regard Bush as God's anointed. It idles like Christian children are defiled in body and soul.

A panderer, according to Webster's dictionary, is a person who provides the means to help meet the ignoble ambitions or desires, vices, etc. of another.

To the extent that President Bush committed the sin of omission, not doing anything, while the Saudis gorge Christian children in body and soul, is a panderer.

Jesus said "Suffer the little children come to me, and not banning them, for of such is the kingdom of God Amen, I say: Who does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall in no wise enter into it. "Luke 18: 16-17.

Colin Powell and President Bush have a passport to enter the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

But that will be allowed to enter the kingdom of God?

Copyright © Chanan David, 2004. All rights reserved.

This is an intellectual product to use in the fight against terrorism, the mandate under the provisions of the Homeland Security legislation.

-30 -

The Animal Rights Summit

Is it just me, or is increasingly polarized society? It seems that for every action there is a reaction and equaller oppositer. And against the war. For or against the environment. For or against the family.

Consider the role animals play in society. No, I mean politicians, TV producers or Janet Jackson. I mean animals like rabbits and mice and bears.

Some people to sacrifice their lives for animals, to protest against the use of animals in laboratory experiments. They oppose the harsh testing of chemicals and makeup on rabbits and mice innocent. I suspect they would secretly rather than chemicals and cosmetics be tested on humans but some.

Meanwhile, another large contingent of society has no interest in animal testing makeup, because it would be much better shot. I mean animals, not animal rights protesters. On second thought, they might want to shoot the demonstrators, too.

I thought I'd share this great when I looked at the label of a new "powerful anti-dandruff shampoos that we just bought - an oil-based shampoo that works to sink into doing hair for at least three minutes. The instruction manual in 13 languages, offers an impressive array of records with the danger symbols, even warning me not to leave the shampoo have in the eyes.

I stopped. I have my eyelids (effect). Here is a chemical had to be paid all over my head and soak for at least three minutes. A chemical that will take place on my face and eyes. A chemical that will surely make my eyes blind ... or worse.

Then I read a tiny written down: "Not tested on animals". Luckily, I thought. I would not want to go blind!

I decided to try to bridge the gap between the animal rights movement and the sport movement hunter convening a world summit.

I chose to invite some animals, including Big Bear, a veteran of several hunting seasons. I also called the Three Blind Mice, testers shampoo expert, told me.

Across the table, I invited Robin Gunn and his merry band of hunters.

"It's not fair," began Big Bear. "What animals should be subject to torture human. We have rights, too." Robin Gunn snorted. His band of merry hunters snorted, too.

I decided groped a rapprochement. "Admittedly, most people would rather sacrifice a couple of lab rats discover their children have lost their sight."

"Rats!" insisted Mouse # 1.

"Excuse me," I replied

"We are mice not rats," said Mouse # 2.

Robin Gunn snorted. His band of merry hunters snorted, too.

"I suspect most people do not care if their cosmetics have been tested on mice or rats or elephants, until know the products are safe before you buy them," I suggested useful.

"Fantastic! Now our host wants to torture elephants, too," Big Bear growled with an increasingly hungry look in his eyes. "Do not you know I'm an endangered species?"

It 'was then that I decided to go to Plan B. "Brownies anyone?"

Robin Gunn snorted. His band of merry hunters snorted, too. But they ate the brownies.

I turned to Mr. Gunn. '"I understand the need to eat animals I said with a look at Big Bear, but they were not killing for sport seems a bit' too?"

"Why?" Mr. Gunn wanted to know.

"Well, was not so a sport when a team gets a high-powered rifle while the other never knows there's even a game in progress, right?"

Big Bear growled. Mice growled, too. OK, so it was more like a sharp squeak, but it's the thought that counts, right?

I tried another line of discussion. "And if he met with the animals to choose teams. It would be a bit 'more fair?"

Robin Gunn looked at me like I was crazy. Big Bear looked at me like I was crazy.

It turns out that I was crazy. The summit ended in failure. Big Bear loved the brownies, but wanted something more. The Three Blind Mice even saw it coming.

And Mrs. Gunn is really enjoying his new bearskin rug.

Meanwhile, I do not know what to do with my hair growing fat. I suppose that sooner or later I'll have to use shampoo. Meanwhile, I wonder ... Think ketchup work?

Polling and campaigns easier to use Online Surveys

That campaign for the government, local or chapter for election to the Board of School online surveys are the tool of choice easy and effective that will benefit any campaign. Use surveys to discover more about the electorate, to identify the issues that really concern them so that each campaign can be customized to reach the hearts and minds of voters.

Objective

For each survey, it is important to decide from the outset what the purpose of the study and is considering conducting a survey to support a particular candidate to assess whether the aim of the survey is to find out what the 'issues' are or the investigation is to be used to promote the image of candidates and policies?

In many cases the objectives are in line with the different phases of the electoral process.

Pre-campaign

Before the campaign started a poll is a great way to canvass voters and to determine what issues may be important. To obtain a greater response across the entire political spectrum of the survey should preferably be conducted through an independent channel, so that the views of people of a particular candidate does not influence the research.

For a political poll, it is essential that the demographics of the respondents have established different groups may have both common and different views. With the demographic information is the opportunity to determine the main issues are by age group, with income and gender; People Have rent the same concerns as those that own their homes?

A pre-campaign survey will be able to monitor the mood of voters. Some may, if required, also indicate that they can vote in elections in the future. Listening to the voters a campaign can be planned better and will be printed and marketing orally be well targeted to address issues that people want.

For candidates who are in step with the electorate surveys can provide a measure of how much effort is required, and in which areas, so that people are convinced and change their opinions.

Campaign Survey

During a campaign an online survey is an effective way to market position of a candidate. Tradition methods of distributing flyers count on the recipient reading and taking on board the message. Flyers are a unique way of marketing efforts and more often rejected and discarded along with other 'junk'.

Consider the other hand, an online survey that can phrase questions like: -

Do you support candidate Jones' promise to cut the budget deficit in half to 250 billion U.S. dollars in four years, and to reinstate budget rules to reduce spending?

To answer this question, the defendant must engage mentally with the inquiry by reading and then considering the statement before formulating an opinion. Since the defendant is able to express their views are even more likely that will examine the topic. An online survey is not only able to offer an important political statement, but also allow the country team to monitor the level of support that candidate on specific issues.

Using data from the pre-campaign 'undecided voter' may be interested and engaged, perhaps with the political opposition is used to highlight the advantage of voting for a candidate.

Do you have plans to support the opposition that will reduce the tax burden for the top and consequently in middle-income families pay more taxes?

A well-written survey campaign will promote the candidate, the general measure and monitor the effectiveness of the campaign. Online surveys allow this to happen with remarkable ease, are extremely profitable and allow the results to be analyzed on the fly.

Comparison

Compare the benefits of online surveys over other forms of campaigning such as canvassing and telephone canvassing, leafleting, advertising and personal appearances.

If you have not already, the Internet is rapidly becoming the primary method of communication for both personal use and provides direct access to a wide cross section of the population to vote.

Through the use of electronic mail, Web sites and search engine advertising online surveys are able to address most of the population at a fraction of the price compared to traditional methods of marketing. With online surveys ability to provide market research, marketing and education there is no other single form of marketing is the most convenient and versatile.

With the speed of deployment measured in hours and minutes, not weeks and days, online surveys are able to deliver a message of the campaign flexible and dynamic pace with the political trends that can change based on a single comment or title.

With each survey the demographics of a country is able to measure accurately and immediately the extent of success in terms of number of 'message' delivered, the target group and, based on the results, the effectiveness of campaign online marketing survey.