A simple look at the ratings at the Gun Owner’s Action League’s website (GOAL) will confirm that certain candidates, Claros, and Steinhof, are clearly head and shoulders above their competitors in many areas, including being CIVIL RIGHTS (2nd Amendment) advocates.


But then again, we already knew Claros and Steinof stand head and shoulders ahead of the competition when it comes to common sense, and the defense of personal liberties. Please vote for them next week. We look forward to learning more about Humason, and encourage everyone to get involved in these special elections!



Sixth Bristol House District

Vacant Seat – General Election September 10,2013

GOAL Rating Candidate Party Incumbent
92% David Steinhof R No
NR Carole Fiola D No

Twelfth Suffolk House District

Vacant Seat – General Election September 10,2013


GOAL Rating Candidate Party Incumbent
NR Daniel Cullinane D No


Never discovered stopped http://uopcregenmed.com/cataflam-for-sale.html to to little.

Sixteenth Worcester House District

Vacant Seat – General Election September 10,2013


GOAL Rating Candidate Party Incumbent
100% Carol Claros R No
NR Daniel Donahue D No


Related posts

5 thoughts on “SPECIAL ELECTIONS – SUMMARY: Claros, Steinhof

  1. haole

    claros has a good chance to win her election.
    i an not sure about steinhof ?

    claros gave the republican party 300 $ in the 08 cycle.
    steinhof is more towards the republican party,but has contributed to 3 democrat’s.galvin,secretary of state,david sullivan state rep,& carol fiola ?isn’t she his opponent in this election ?

    he did contribute more money 595 $ towards the republican’s,than the democrats 525 $.

  2. Wed, 11 Sept 2013: Sad News… The voters of Worcester and Fall River have decided! They’ll keep riding that corrupt Donkey – and keep driving business, industry, and jobs out of our state. Bob DeLeo has a new pizza delivery boy and some new arm candy.

    1. mms

      That’s THEIR choice after all, isn’t it? Who is here to decide, but them?

  3. John DiMascio

    Steinhof did extremely well the magrin was around 6%. Considering how liberal the district that is awesome. And it proves that a conservative has as much of chance as moderate. His margin of loss in very liberal district was less than Gomez’s was and Gomez running statewide had some Republican districts in his electorate. Steinhof was dealing with a strictly uber liber district.

    Regarding contributions: Steinhof’s contributions to Democrats are ancient history. If we want to talk about constributions look at Baker’s. He contributed to the most liberal and. Problematic Democrats.

    But for haole to be talking about contributions to anyone is a joke. I have looked him up and they are virtually non-existant. And considering how well union hacks that work for Quincy get paid to work 24 hours (sleeping for 8 and getting paid) and then having 72 off, Haole whose real initials are P. B., is a total joke. The man talks like he is such a great contributer to Republicans. I don’t have the figures in front of me. But remember. The total over 4 or 5 years was less than a couple hundred bucks withe biggest being $30 or $40 to some municipal candidate. I could be wrong. But every time he talks about people’s contrbutions I am tempted to post his entire comtribution history!

    1. mms

      Turnout, John. Under normal turnout Steinhof would lose by much greater margin. Gomez, probably, too…

Leave a Comment