Before probing the political forces-at-play [in honor of election day], note the anticipated contrast between the

level of media attention being provided to gop-rep Peter King {NY}, who has-a-campaignagainst-ted-cruz-ready-to-go-for-looming-budget-fight and to jason-chaffetz, who recalls the Valerie Plame episode when, regarding Benghazi-Gate, the WaPo released the name of a British agent. * I was advised by an academic political-scientist that a classic text composed to analyze forces-at-play across the pond [Political change in Britain The Evolution of Electoral Choice by David Butler and Donald Stokes with the 2nd Edition published in 1974] should be invoked when vetting current issues. This 500-page treatise may be four-decades remote, but certain concerns live-onas per concepts that have been summarized in its 20-page Conclusion (minus charts/graphs that permeate the analysis); candidly, these quotes are distilled to test whether attacking Mike Fitzpatrick is a reasonable pursuit for, in this instance, the working-hypothesis is that the strongest possible [conservative] nominees [recalling the Buckley Rule] will be needed when trying to wrest governmental control from the Dems. It is this physicians theory that this national movement will spread [after the 11/5/2013 elections] sequentially, as locals recognize that others have successfully mounted primary challenges to those who had otherwise been tolerated as sufficiently Republican to satisfy the need to eschew the Dems; also, recalling the arithmetic, one can expect far more challenges to Wall St./K St.-types [like Mike] than to Main St.-populists [like Amash]. We can amass grass-root supporters that self-serving corporatists can only attempt to purchase although, obviously, funding-concerns perennially face constitutionalists; analyzed purely as a political science paradigm, we encompass legitimate concerns of free-marketeers, whereas the vulture-capitalists cant view our desire for adherence to rule-of-law within their paradigm. Our ranks would be swelled reasonably by social-conservatives and believers in a muscular-military, but it would be necessary to accommodate these concerns secondarily when Americas survival is at-stake; this model should not be perceived as demeaning these trenchant issues, for most are perceivable as a subset of the Judeo-Christian value-system that underlies disinterested constitutional interpretation, as compared/contrasted with the judicial activism of non-libertarian libs born of Dems progressivism. In many respects, this is a race-to-the-finish, as BHO attempts to create a level of dependency that, then, would instill fear in the heart of a voter so profound that NO scandal [whether related to the faulty ObamaCare roll-out or to Benghazi/IRS/NSA/etc.] could penetrate the perceived need for a next meal. The extreme nature of what is rapidly transpiring [with Dems admitting truths while continuing to be going-about-their-business, making one wonder how they can live with themselves] is truly unnerving; necessary, therefore, is an all hands on deck mentality that ignores chronicity and highlights acuity . [These ideas were honed rhetorically during a chat with a BucksCo community activist (Thanks!).] This memo contrasts with its predecessor blasts, in that hyperlinks are eschewed; the simple-goal is to lift quotes and then to see where they lead; having pre-read them, it is my bias that they corroborate efforts to expunge all statist elements within the GOPASAPand that includes their apologists. Enablers [such as Mike] have forged working-relationships with us, but ultimately they wilt when the harsh-reality of quotes from Guzzardi [accrued over the past decade, in particular, in his modern era] are scrutinized. Debating those who think otherwise would be a pleasure, for these views are baked-in! *

The last chapter [Continuity and Change] addresses Approaches to Change; A Decade of Change; and A Comparative Perspective. The opening graph constitutes a disclaimer that cites complexity [and certainly not all of the ideas in this treatise are applicable to America in this New Millennium], but those who wish to ID key-trends are nevertheless invited to weigh what these authors have discerned. [Ignored is the existence of the Liberal Party for, except when dealing with New York State, no one who claims to be reasonable would postulate that a third-party (Conservative) movement could work; having served as Perots coordinator for Abington/Cheltenham/Jenkintown, I watched Clinton emerge.] The world is dynamic, and no one model [economic, social, ethnic] fits all needs, even as some subsets [such as blacks overwhelmingly supporting BHO] carry implications regarding allocation-of-resources. For all intents and purposes, Labour=Dems=Progressives and Conservative=GOP=Conservatives, although the obvious intent here is to validate the fact that challenging Mike is do-able [assuming the right candidate were to emerge]; as noted supra, the mere fact that he would be facing the voters [during a MAY primary, not just in the November general-election] would perhaps instill a greater level of sensitivity to concerns harbored by his base regarding not only the budget/ObamaCare/deficit, but also the looming Immigration Reform battle [which Mikes comments in early-August suggest he will want to re-cast as anything but Immunitydespite the fact that this is precisely what it indubitably is]. The major initial disclaimer is that although the analytic frameworks connect consequence with cause, they do not account for the occurrence of the cause itself. Subsequent discussion focuses on whether politicians can aspire to alter public opinion, an observation that is particularly applicable to the POTUS [noting his weekend appearance in Virginia]. This gets into the dynamic between passivity/leadership [with the ins complaining of the former when yearning for the latter, while the outs do t he opposite] that is based upon bias/perception, although a sub-point appears not to be applicable to current-USA: Any suggestion that the management of the economy offers governments an infallible tool for the engineering of electoral consent is likely to win only wry smiles from prime ministers or chancellors of the exchequer until economic change becomes far more predictable and economic science far more exact. The qualifiers are as ethereal now as they were then, but that hasnt stopped BHO from efforts to dismember the economy [fundamentally] while leaving absolutely nothing substantive in his wake. * The changing-electorate may be problematicdemographicallyfor the GOP [touted by the Dems], but no pundit has reasonably applied such dynamics to the 8th Congressional District; indeed, the census led to a slight-enhancement of the GOP, with the 3%-splay discerned in the PPP-poll [just announced] undoubtedly minimizing this parameter. Of course, this is framed as Mike vs. generic-Dem and thus assumes his personal likeability would be a built-in plus; nevertheless, neither of the putative-Dems appears to start with any ground-swell of local-support, so a supplanted-R wouldnt be disadvantaged. This notwithstanding, the core-concept conveyed is how [regardless of replacement phenomena], conversion and realignment are worthy of scrutinyparticularly after flaws in ObamaCare emerge. Within discussion of what had transpired with class realignment in England, the issue of migration was raised; then, as now, the emigration component was found to have benefitted the Libs/Dems, whereas upward change of occupational status tended to benefit Conservatives/Republicans. Also, enhanced support for welfare policies fueled Labours return to power in 1964. Many such truisms are recounted to validate the applicability of some of these perceptions to the current-day conflicts. Indeed, it is noted that the evolution of economic lot didnt affect voting, an observation mirrored when BHO was re-elected despite a drop in median-income in America from ~$54K to ~$52K since 2009.

Fluctuations in the economy did affect voting, but only to the degree to which there was a general view as to whether a given government had appeared competent, particularly with regard to unemployment. This discussion segued into a public perception of the party criterion, certainly cognizable these days when the media continually bash the GOP brand; emphasized was the dynamic between the party and the candidate, perhaps a greater force in England due to its parliamentary governmental structure. Public perception of pensions, housing and education wereagain perhaps unique to Englandof more consequence than has been prominent in America, and there is no discussion of foreign policy issues [other than an allusion to the Common Market, which isnt comparable to discussion of the Middle East] as routinely arises [with variable valanceusing a term in the bookdepending upon the context] within an America [that may lack colonies but surely remains involveddespite BHOworldwide]. When listing institutional changes of the 1960s, the final one was the transformation of the media ascribable to the impact of TV; four decades hence, the catalyst for such reverberations is the Internet. The resultthen and nowwas the potential for more fluid changes in the electorate, although it is possible that this phenomenon is muted in America, noting that people with predisposed viewpoints can select a home that strokes the creature-comforts that might tend to validate their political attitudes. [The observation that Some of the many hours the electorate now give to TV viewing used to be spent in pubs or other social contacts would easily cross-ruff with current debate regarding the social-media.] Of these aforementioned factors [housing, education, economy], the media were seen as volatile. * To effect change most efficiently, it is argued that urbanization, literacy and the use of mass media were vital, particularly in a dynamic environment. Explicit differentiation of England and America is ascribed to class level [in the former] rather than regional, racial and religious forces [in the latter]. When searching for a realignment-force in America, therefore, one might note how BHOs icy attitude toward Israel accounted for a ~50% increase in the GOP support [from ~20% to ~30%] in 2012 of Jews. Circumstances are cited as having triggered such shifting in England, and so too is this emerging now [e.g., with regard to Irans Nuke threat]. Far less potent, however, have been efforts to help the poor [particularly in the inner city] to accept GOP-ideas regarding [for example] school choice; even when circumstances [such as Phillys high murder-rate] are recognized, any political import appears muted. That ObamaCare may be different, however, may also not fly; those who seek entitlements, will not be fazed by glitches and will welcome the redistribution of wealth [and social justice] that is pledged. This phenomenon, in the book, was termed transient conversion of party support, and it was felt then to present a rich field for comparative inquiry. After suggesting ideology wasnt a strong force with British politics, the degree to which such forces could be tested would be found [going full-cycle, here] via creation of meaningful frameworks for analysis of multiple [oftentimes-competing] forces. Finally, the book ended with a key-disclaimer that harkens to the low-information voter when it laments alienation of people from the forms of parliamentary democracy or popular government in England. The coda is based on the hope that an amalgamation of frameworks could provide enhanced insight, again harkening to how BHOs super-computer in Chicago [with every voter indexed and x-referenced] greatly assisted his campaign-staff when buttons had to be pushed during his re-election campaign. *

The message to America, here, is that plus a change, plus c'est la mme chose [the more things change, the more they stay the same]. The focus on the use of populism [e.g., door-knocking, e-mail] rather than depending upon advertising [expensive and efficient, but not retail politics] is notable, and the ability to help the GOPs primary-voting electorate align itself with a credible base appears validated. Otherwise, the reader is invited to draw conclusions that may be mutually exclusive of this boosterism born of a motivation to primary Mike; the editorialization herein is otherwise as muted as possible.