2010 Election Thread - Results

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Lowbacca_1977, May 17, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Lowbacca_1977 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    LtNOWIS, in California, from my reading of it, to be a political party, you have to have a certain percentage of the votes in the general election. As this will, remove third parties, on the whole, from the general elections it seems that will lead to them being stripped of their party status as soon as we have a general election to base it on, since they won't be maintaining the requirements needed to be a party in California since prop 14 didn't change that part of the law.
  2. Lowbacca_1977 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    I'm annoyed with Jerry Brown's return on two counts. Number one, I find his running to be disrespectful of California voter intent in having passed term limits on being governor, and I don't like career politics, which includes having him come back as governor for a third term (our term limit is 2, but that was passed after he served so apparently it doesn't count). Number two, I have an issue with him picking and choosing as attorney general, and rather than pursuing the state's interests, he's pursuing his own. Case in point, his stance on prop 8 and declining to defend it as attorney general because he disagreed with it, deciding he has a veto power when he doesn't. That just annoys the heck out of me, even though I strongly disagree with prop 8 myself. Third, there is a bit of a family history on him. One of the judges he appointed when he was governor changed the sentence of the guy that murdered my mom's cousin from the death penalty to life with the possibility of parole, meaning that the family had to go in for hearings periodically. Had it gone just to life without a possibility of parole, I'd really not be worried, as I don't consider that a big issue, but that he was changed to being up for parole is a family sore spot.

    That said, I'm not pleased with Meg Whitman, either, really. Not as bad as Carly Fiorina, as evidenced by earlier statements I've said about Carly.... so for governor... right now, I don't know who I'll vote for. I can guarantee it's not Jerry Brown, but I don't know who I will vote for. And I may as well enjoy my last time to have this much choice in November.
  3. Lowbacca_1977 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    So, I just discovered this as I was trying to find out where Damon Dunn, who defeated Orly Taitz, was from in California to see if he had an area of increased support. Turns out that a. Damon Dunn is black and b. Orly Taitz claimed he wasn't eligible to run. http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/the-hilarious-haters/orly-taitzs-claims-about-damon/

    So, California Republicans just backed the black guy over the birther by a 3-1 vote, roughly. I don't think the race thing matters because, well, I don't think anyone KNEW what race he was since it was a non-issue, but I find this amusing.
  4. Ghost Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    I'm sorry about your mom's cousin. @};-

    I honestly don't know much about Jerry Brown, and even less about Meg Whitman, so I don't know who I would vote for either. It doesn't matter anyways, since I'm in Rhode Island, but California politics are usually felt nation-wide. If California's next governor can fix its budget problems, then hopefully we'll learn something and have a sliver of hope for this little state's future. :p I'm rooting for Chafee's independent run for our Governor, and I think he's winning in polls now too.

    I did just do a quick Wikipedia read on "Governor Moonbeam," and his running for office again does seem hypocritical in spirit too, since he seemed to start off very anti-establishment and pro-campaign reform. He's a strong environmentalist and seems to be future-oriented, which I like. But maybe Whitman's time as a CEO will make her better for California's budget problems, which I would think is the main issue for California right now. It is the main issue, right? Either way, don't really have enough info to be pro- or anti- anyone in that Governor's race right now.

    And thank God that California Republicans had enough sense to knock Orly Taitz back to the Soviet Union. ;) It is an interesting sidenote that the person she was facing was black, and she claimed he wasn't eligible to run either. Shows her true colors. And I still think Orly Taitz would make more sense if she turned out to be Borat in disguise for his next movie. [face_beatup]
  5. Lowbacca_1977 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Meg Whitman is more of a lack of reasons to support her, whereas Brown is more reasons I'd oppose her.

    And for California, getting the state to be not falling apart is high priority, which I think may gave Whitman the edge over Jerry Brown, but Whitman has to reclaim the center after the run to the right that's put her a bit further down in polling. I'm not terribly optimistic about what Brown can do for the budget.


    Also worth noting that in Nevada, the GOP governor lost the primary to Brian Sandoval.
  6. Ghost Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    I think Nevada's scandalous Governor actually stated he was relieved to have lost so he can get his personal life back, and his opposition was actually a life-appointed Judge drafted by the Nevada GOP to run against him.

    The more I learn about other states, the more I think there's some hope for RI. Or at least we're all screwed together. :p
  7. Lowbacca_1977 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Ah.... so that's where he came from as a candidate.

    And yeah, I don't buy that any state has a monopoly on bad politics, or dumb voters.
  8. Espaldapalabras Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 25, 2005
    star 5
    Well I'm still mad the Tea Party was able to oust a popular sitting Senator with not a single vote from the people. Utah is able to keep its budget balanced, but only because there is nobody to stand up for the disabled, the mentally unstable, and the poor being thrown out onto the street or into institutions. The GOP refuses to even consider raising taxes, so public services here in Utah are just being slashed.

    Oh and the Human Services department of the state is just full of big payouts to the friends and cronies who run the programs, while the actual services are slashed and front line workers either laid off or severely reduced pay.
  9. Lowbacca_1977 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Ok, I've got two puzzles for everyone.

    Number 1, keeping in mind that Orly Taitz lives in Orange County in Southern California, I ask if anyone can explain this as I have NO idea how she won the one county she did.

    Number 2, and presuming this doesn't change, how is it San Francisco, arguably the most liberal county in the state, and Orange County, arguably the most conservative county in the state, and easily one of the most active conservative counties, are the only two counties on the 'no' side of Prop 14? This seems like it should never actually occur without it being a sign of the apocalypse.
  10. LtNOWIS Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2005
    star 4
    Nikki Haley's now the odds-on favorite to be the next governor of South Carolina. This is a win for the national GOP, because they'll have a well-spoken woman of color to counteract the "party of white guys" image. I expect she'll speak at the 2012 convention.

    Ah, I see. That's an important factor that I missed.

    Still, this style of primary does allow for more candidates who don't have to pander to one party or another. There may not be any third party people officially, but no party will have any control over who actually gets nominated. In addition to "no party" candidates, you can have people who are totally outside of the party establishment run under a party banner. I would again point to the David Duke example. He may have run as a Republican, but the GOP loathed him more than they did any Democrat, and his views were farther outside the mainstream than you'd ever get from a party-approved candidate.

    Having elections with several viable candidates from across the spectrum will give Californians more actual choice than a thousand 1% wonders. I mean, look at this map. They voted this way in October, and had a runoff in November:
    [image=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b9/LAGovElection_Oct03.png]
    Link
  11. Lowbacca_1977 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Well, the example you provided, at least, seems to be dominated entirely by Republicans and Democrats, and not independent candidates. I don't understand saying that someone can run under the party title without being accepted by the party, given that that is ALREADY possible here in California. In fact, the 'tea party' candidates are a current example of people outside the party running for the nomination. What it seems to be representing is less than 2% went to people that weren't a Republican or a Democrat.
    In California's last election for governor in 2006, over 5% of the vote went to third-party candidates. In the 2003, the special election, third-parties and independents got 4.5% of the vote in a bizarre election that saw 10 parties on the ballot. In 2002, third-party candidates got over 10% of the vote, with the Green party alone getting over 5%. In 1998, third parties had just over 3.5% of the vote.

    Third parties have had a presence, at times on the upswing, here in California, and what has happened with Prop 14 doesn't encourage this diversity of opinion, it looks like it will stifle it, and I would go further to say that I think an instant run-off is what would have ACTUALLY helped because it would allow people to vote where they want to more rather than just to beat the other side.


    EDIT: I'm also very confused. Nikki Haley in South Carolina is being called a tea party candidate and led the primary for the GOP (but not enough to avoid a run off), however, she's not white.
  12. Jabba-wocky Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Though it was admittedly perhaps difficult to discern, given some Angle's other views I listed, my focus was on how they made her unelectable, not my opinion of their substance. Given the difficulties around trying to use Yucca Mountain for nuclear storage, I doubt the Nevada electorate will be enthusiastic about embracing this plan, either. Relevant because before now, Reid was seen as basically dead, but has now received what pretty much seems to be the weakest of all possible Republican candidates to run against.
  13. Fire_Ice_Death Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Well, it looks like the GOP likes Harry Reid as senator since they nominated Sharron Angle in the general election against him. The lady wants prohibition, supports $cientology, and is a teabagger. It's going to be fun watching the campaign ads.

    And Lowie: It's called tokenism.
  14. Espaldapalabras Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 25, 2005
    star 5
    Well whichever teabag Senator we elect here in Utah will have fun standing up to Reid without all the worrying about how to actually govern. They can talk about flat taxes and evil communism.
  15. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 9
    Reid is going to win, and by a larger margin than in 2004. It dovetails with my view that Democrats will do rather well, all things considered.
  16. Ghost Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    But none of the Democrats should presume they will win. That was Martha Coakley's mistake.

    Blanche Lincoln also showed that you can still be an incumbent Democrat and win.

    The key to Democratic victory in 2010: don't run on a national Democrat platform--- run on a local, grassroots, anti- special interests in Washington, "kitchen table"-focused Campaign.


    Sorry to quote myself earlier... but it really seems to be the year of the Woman, doesn't it? They've been under-represented for far too long, House and Senate and Governors should be about 50% female. Maybe the glass ceiling isn't broken yet, but it is crumbling.
  17. Lowbacca_1977 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Fire_Ice_Death, I think that's in inaccurate view of tokenism. Michael Steele, I'll give you that possibility far more.

    KnightWriter, in 2004 Reid won with 61% of the vote and a 26% margin. A week ago, MasonDixon had Angle beating Reid 44-41, and since December, the highest any poll (at least of those on wikipedia for it) had Reid was 43%, and all but two polls have had Angle above that. Are the polls now wrong, or is there something you expect that will cause a 30% swing in the vote in the next few months?

    Very interesting note on the propositions in California here, as it turns out that one of them, that PG&E was trying to buy, resulted in them spending $46 million while the opposition spent $90,000. That's outspending 511-1. And they still lost.
  18. Jabba-wocky Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Lowbacca, I would say the election of Haley was not indicative of tokenism, no. But the way you used the election result was. Electing a single non-white candidate is not somehow a permanent rebuttal to the myriad signs that the Tea Party has some rather concerning views on race. It was pretty much the political equivalent of saying "How can I be racist?! I have black friends!"
  19. Lowbacca_1977 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    I think it's fairly ridiculous, personally, that a big deal is being made about that on a serious level. Though I do think people voted for Carly Fiorina, in part, for that because it was viewed that Barbara Boxer wouldn't be able to use being a woman as part of her argument.


    And Jabba-wocky, I don't see your basis on how that's tokenism. The claim is that the GOP is racist, the tea party moreso. However, minority candidates are winning elections against candidates that are very well established as white. If the big issue was race, then this shouldn't be happening. There's a CHOICE here between "white guy" and "minority" and they're NOT making the choice based on race. Particularly as the reason everyone supposedly hated Obama was they didn't like a black guy in charge. If they didn't want anyone but a white male in charge, then that doesn't make any sense to say that they should vote for anyone other than a white male to be in charge.

    If the narrative was "well, there's a lot of blatant partisan opposition to Obama, and there's no doubt some racists in there as well" and not "well, a lot of people couldn't stand having a black person in charge" then the issue would be different.
  20. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 9
    Lowbacca, I based my statement on the errant belief that Reid barely won in 2004. My mistake.
  21. Lowbacca_1977 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Alright, fair enough. So then I take it you're viewing it as a win for him, but like mid to high single digits?
  22. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 9
    I thought he won by just a few thousand votes, so figure around 3-5%.
  23. Lowbacca_1977 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Man, when you thought he barely won, you REALLY thought he barely won.
  24. Ghost Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    Actually I think being a woman didn't help or hurt any of them, and it wasn't even a story until people realized every big winner on Tuesday was a woman. It just sort of snuck up, gender no longer being an issue, and that is a very good thing.
  25. Lowbacca_1977 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    I'd say it's not been so much of an issue as New Mexico's governor's race was a little bit ago that was more focused on that. Thankfully, it's not getting over-the-top attention, this is true. Fiorina is the only one that won that I think gender might've been a legitimate factor for, given who she's up against.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.