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 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Warning, state-centric wall of text:

    Unaddressed in California is that voter turnout was predicted to be around 30% or a bit higher, and it is currently at 24.9%, with a total of 4,227,070 votes. More than that, several Republican counties (such as Riverside and Orange county) are currently around or under 20% turnout. Why the discrepancy? Well, expectations were that mail-in ballots might be at the highest level they've ever been, with possibly more than half the votes being mailed-in. The result is that many counties still haven't counted a large share of votes. The question is, what underlying effect might there be for the statewide races.

    To start, which counties have released how many ballots have yet to be counted, and how many votes have they reported so far? This only applies to counties that release the number of uncounted votes
    Colusa County: 7837 registered, 3105 voted. Uncounted: 49 vote-by mail, 47 provisional
    Imperial County: 54,921 registered, 11,456 voted. Uncounted: 3431 vote-by-mail, 703 provisional, 566 damaged
    Orange County: 1,603,312 registered, 328,443 voted. Uncounted: 154,305 vote-by-mail, 11,196 provisional, 4,414 election day paper ballots
    Placer County: 197,655 registered, 72,872 voted. Uncounted: county estimate of 18-22 thousand
    Riverside County: 817,286 registered, 135,186 voted. Uncounted: 106,000 vote-by mail and provisional ballots
    San Diego County: 1,416,273 registered, 367,007 voted. Uncounted: 160,000 vote-by-mail/provisional ballots
    San Luis Obispo County: 154,290 registered, 53,393 voted. Uncounted: 18918 total ballots (13508 vbm)
    Tulare County: 148,144 registered, 31,923 voted. Uncounted: 5700 vote-by-mail, 800 provisional

    Just off these states that have information on votes not yet counted, this represents over 500,000 votes that haven't yet been counted. Completed counties seem to be showing that vote-by-mail ballots should be at or above the number of day-of regular votes, on average, and that turn-out at least exceeded 30%, and could have been closer to 40%. With those two points, projections can also be made on which counties may well have large numbers of vote-by-mail votes that have not yet been counted. For example, Los Angeles county currently has turnout of under 20%. However, rather than mail-by-vote ballots representing around half of the votes as is expected, in Los Angeles they represent less than 30% of the votes. For a 50/50 split, that would mean around 350,000 more votes, which would also raise the voter turnout in Los Angeles to around 30%, much closer to what is expected. Other counties that are noticibly low right now and have the vote-by-mail ballots not meeting expectations include San Bernardino County, where another 15-20,000 vote-by mail ballots for them to be the majority of the votes and a conservative lean to vote-by-mail might mean even more, and this would raise voter turnout from 19.8% to the low 20s.

    What effect could this have? 500,000 votes just in the counties that have explicitly stated how many ballots remain, and what could easily be closer to 750,000 votes, can swing several elections, noting that with increased Republican turnout, about half those votes would be Republican, and half would be Democrat (more than would be expected under uniform turnout). The GOP race for insurance commissioner is currently an 11,000 vote margin (50.4-49.6), and Mike Villines would need only 52% of the vote if there are 300,000 Republican ballots left to count to retake the lead he had early on in the night. The nonpartisan office of Superintendent of Public Instruction will be seeing a run-off between the top two candidates, but the difference between the 2nd and 3rd candidates is 25,000 votes, or at a high end, a margin equal to the 5% of the votes that haven't yet been counted. Additionally, propositions 16 and 17 currently have vote margins of 150,000, and prop 14 has a margin of 300,000 votes. On the higher estimate of uncounted votes of 750,000, if 60% voted for prop 16 or 17, either vote could be overturned and shift back to passing, and 70% for prop
  2. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    The "storyline" was never that. The claim has always been that there is an unusually strong strain of racism within the Tea Party, that racists are basically welcome/ideologically sheltered there, and that the increase in right wing fringe activity is being exacerbated by the fact of Obama's race compounding their reaction to his policies.

    But putting that aside, your argument isn't even good. For their to be racism, one merely needs to treat/regard people differently solely on the basis of their race/ethnicity. Note that this is a long way from "I always vote for white people every single time no matter what." For instance, consider racial profiling. That is widely (and correctly) considered racism even though the police aren't letting every single white person go free, and arresting every single minority. Rather, they have increased index of suspicion based solely on the race of a citizen/passerby/suspect. This relative prejudice can still be overcome when there is enough absolute evidence weighing against it (thus, not all blacks are endlessly harassed), but it is the mere presence of the prejudice in the first place that defines them as racist. Or again, it was serious and widely held opinion in early American history that people of African descent were somehow subhuman, and perhaps incapable of higher order cognition. However, in spite of this fact, many people recognized Phyllis Wheatley as a tremendously gifted poet. The fact that they did so certainly doesn't make them "not racist," especially when we have copious written records and biographies demonstrating that they were openly and explicitly so. It just means, again, that in one particular case, the absolute level of talent in question outweighed their prejudiced baseline assessment of an African-American woman.

    In short, all you basically said was "I doubt they're ideologically pure enough to become Grand Wizard of the KKK!" Thanks for that. Meanwhile, a useful analysis of the question of Tea Party's views on race might've asked questions like, "To what, if any, extent was Haley's margin of victory affected by her background?" "What was the quality of her opponents, realtive to hers, in terms of credentials, political network, and campaigning skill?" "Did other factors (eg Sarah Palin's endorsement) override normal voter considerations?" Etc. It's hardly as simple as result-->therefore racism is impossible. Making that sort of argument is the whole essence of tokenism, because the strategy counts on people buying into that sort of facile logic.
  3. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Just read an LA Times piece that has picked up on the year of the conservative woman, noting that the GOP seems to no longer be having an issue with women for office, though it delves into that apparently in voting gender is still having an annoying presence. It's a fairly cringe-generating article, on the whole.
  4. Faces of Silas Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 11, 1999
    star 2
    Be comfortable in your presumptions.

    Queen Nancy?s meeting this week with Code Pink seems to sum up the situation for Progressives rather well. Hey, there are no issues ? they are working the problems and things are under control. This gathering was an example that all is well in the Democratic camp. Hell, their tent is so large that it encompasses every corner of society and most facets of human endeavor. This is one big happy family ? sort of makes one all warm and fuzzy ? ready to jump on the bandwagon.

    Umm, I?ll pass on being included. Call me a black sheep of the family.
  5. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    Wasn't Code Pink heckling Speaker Pelosi?

    And since when is Progressive a bad word? Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive.

    What's so bad about what the Democrats want to do? What do you dislike about their agenda? Do you know what their agenda is, post-Healthcare?




    And, to be fair, what is the Republican agenda? Specifically, and realistically?

    ("Cutting taxes and spending" is not specific, "repeal healthcare" is not realistic) What would be their actual agenda?

    Would they be partisan... Try to ban gay marriage in every state by federal law? Try to overturn Roe v. Wade? Go to war with Iran? Allow torture? Deregulate Big Oil and Big Banks further?

    Or more bipartisan... like expand the Healthcare Law to include tort reform? Pay to construct enough new nuclear power plants to no longer rely on fossil fuels for electricity? Reform the flawed No Child Left Behind? Toughen border security?

    Would they just not legislate?

    What would be the GOP agenda?
  6. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    I think that really depends on who ends up being in a leadership position for the Republicans. Case in point, Bush was fairly supportive of illegal immigration as a Republican.

    South Carolina's primary is now having some doubt cast upon it: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/something-fishy-in-south-carolina.html
  7. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    And South Carolina has officially gotten weird. Apparently there's some big voter questions across the board, as there's some odd voting records. (Fivethirtyeight.com mentioned this, I'm grabbing numbers myself from the election results

    Barnwell County: All 1147 ballots in the Republican primary cast a vote for governor
    Darlington County: 4426 ballots in the Republican primary, 4507 votes for Republican governor
    Fairfield County: All 1087 ballots in the Republican primary cast a vote for governor
    Horry County: 23548 ballots in the Republican primary, 23762 votes for Republican governor
    Horry County: 4274 ballots in the Democrat primary, 4319 votes for Democrat governor
    Marlboro County: 442 ballots in the Republican primary, 451 votes for Republican governor
    Marlboro County: 3264 ballots in the Democrat primary, 3325 votes for Democrat governor
    Marlboro County: 3264 ballots in the Democrat primary, 3688 votes for State House of Representatives District 54 - DEM


    Additionally, in going through this, and I've not done the numbers for this, but just in checking, there seems to be a huge difference between the number of ballots on the Democrat side that cast votes in the elections (starting at around low 90s and lower) to the number of ballots on the Republican side that cast votes in the elections, with, aside from the stuff mentioned above, many of them had greater than 99% of Republican ballots register a vote in that election, which strikes me as suspicious, as I would think some wouldn't have voted for that election or misvoted. At least, in higher numbers than that. This looks very, very, very weird, with the above examples looking outright wrong, and the others being suspicious but I don't know what I'm looking at.
  8. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    Be comfortable in your presumptions.


    I am :). My intuition rarely lets me down, and I'm certain it won't in this case.
  9. LtNOWIS Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2005
    star 4
    Any of the white guys in that race would have killed to get 49% in a 4-way primary. She beat the state AG, the Lt. governor, and a charismatic, conservative military veteran Congressman.

    Even if racism held her back in any way, it's impossible to differentiate between racism from the tea party folks, and racism from any other primary voters.

    Haley isn't really a tea party candidate, in that she didn't arise from the tea party movement. Shocking, but there were people who touted conservatism and reform prior to 2009.

    I'd agree with this. There are also a lot of women who have been out-conservative'd or otherwise fail in primaries. I wouldn't say gender is a complete non-issue, but it's not a driving factor in any of this.
  10. LtNOWIS Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2005
    star 4
    I believe all the hubbub about weird primary results is talking about the odd results in the meaningless Democratic Senate primary.

    The GOP races pretty much followed what the polls predicted.
  11. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    LtNOWIS, that's true, it's more that the questions on the Democrats' Senate primary has gained attention, and it's the GOP races that seem to carry the hallmark of something weird having gone on more clearly.
  12. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Posting some stuff that I wrote on Facebook on this:
    In contrast, the stuff I'm talking about contains some in the category of, unless there's something very weird about how this works, mathematical impossibilities. Not unlikely, impossible.
    Take Marlboro county. The Republican primary had 442 ballots cast in it (not registered voters, but ballots cast). However, the number of votes for the governor in the Republican primary was 451 votes. On the other side of the ticket, the Democratic primary had 3264 ballots cast. However, in the Democratic primary there were 3325 votes for governor and 3688 votes for the State House of Representatives, District 54. In Horry county, the votes for governor on both the Democratic and Republican primaries show the same thing, and for the Republican governor race in Darlington county. Additionally, the percentage of ballots that voted in the Republican governor's race is, it seems, unusually high. In two counties (Barnwell and Fairfield), it was 100%.

    In fact, in the 46 counties in South Carolina, the percentage of ballots in the primary that voted in the Republican governor's race was greater than 99% in 35 of them, with the lowest being 96.94% still. In contrast, looking at all elections that were county-wide for both parties (basically, nothing that only effected subsets of counties), of which there were 581 contests, there were only 16 contests that had better than 99% of the ballots vote for that contest. Of those, 3 are the other contests I mentioned one paragraph up that also exceeded the number of ballots possible to vote in that contest. 2 more were additional contests in Marlboro, 2 were additional contests in Horry, and 1 was an additional contest in Darlington.

    If you ignore the 3 counties where the Republican primary's contest for governor received more ballots than were submitted for the primary (Darlington, Marlboro, Horry) you're left with 32 of 43 counties had voter completion of over 99%, or 74% of the contests. Ignoring the same 3 counties for all other elections, then voter completion was over 99% for 8 out of 544 contests, which is LESS than 1.5% of the contests on the ballots. There's something that strikes me as very odd in those numbers. Not in the range of "that's not what polls said should happen" or in the range of "that's not what should have happened" but, I think, in the area of being very questionable in terms of mathematical possibilities.
  13. Espaldapalabras Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 25, 2005
    star 5
    We can be bored by those numbers, or we can watch this: Alvin Greene interview.

    My first thought is that I wish they had got me to run. My second thought is that this guy getting elected is way more fishy than the numbers not adding up for a candidate that probably would have won anyways.

    I've watched a few of his interviews, and it seems obvious that somebody gave him the money, he is a horrible liar. Really the only question is who, and how are the voters so stupid?

    Also, as bad as the convention system that knocked out Bob Bennett is here in Utah, it does force candidates to appear before you and speak in complete sentences before you vote for them. You can definitely work the system for lesser offices if you have at least 50 friends, especially for the Democratic party, but for such a major office you would at least have to give a coherent speech. Yes it could be racist, ignorant, and extreme or looney, but you'd at least have to have some public speaking skills.
  14. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Backwords, absent any foul-play, the emerging consensus about what seems to have happened is that no one knew either of the candidates (the other guy that actually campaigned raised a paltry sum, and nowhere near required to get market penetration. His voter recognition was <20%, despite having held office before). Essentially, then, people were just picking blindly between two names, and "Greene" happened to roll off the tongue better, I suppose. While, yeah, I think someone (his parents, most likely) gave him the money for the filing fee, I have doubts about his ability to have coordinated such a massive voter fraud operation.

    Because I mean, well. . .watch that interview. Does that strike you as some sort of criminal mastermind? And if he was a front for someone, who, and why? South Carolina is one of the safest seats for Republicans there is. That's even without factoring in the national mood. There's absolutely no reason to do something illegal/questionable to foul up the Democratic candidate when you can crush the best they have to offer without even trying.

    ~J-w

  15. LtNOWIS Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2005
    star 4
    Yeah, there's really no motivation for anyone to give him money -- except perhaps some sort of bored billionaire sociopath, I guess. It's pretty easy to save up $10,000 if you don't have a family and you're in the military that long.

    The state Democratic party and the local media are to blame for the complete lack of voter information here. My district had a GOP primary, even though we're a totally Democratic district with an unbeatable incumbent. Even though the primary wouldn't matter, there were still biography articles, interviews, debates, everything you really need to make an informed choice.
  16. Espaldapalabras Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 25, 2005
    star 5
    Well I suppose that is plausible. The whole thing just doesn't make much sense any way you cut it. And like I said, there is no way such a thing could happen in Utah, because although the strange convention system we have here where basically self selected delegates choose who gets to be the nominee or go to the primary if they don't have 60% of the delegates, would prevent this rare and crazy occurrence, but at the cost of forcing every candidate to pander to the most extreme elements of each party.

    Which is why on the Democratic side you have a primary between an incumbent Blue Dog and a very liberal lesbian. IN UTAH. In a district gerrymandered to be Republican for the specific purpose of ousting the current incumbent. And then the whole Bob Bennett tea party thing. But at least the delegates are forced to actually meet the people they vote for.

    Yes he could have saved up the money, but I suppose I just don't have enough contact with such levels of stupidity in real life, so I feel like somebody is playing a joke or a scam.
  17. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Also, he was the first name on the ballot, from what I've read.
  18. LtNOWIS Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2005
    star 4
    There's also the point that the actually experienced Democrat who lost had a negative approval rating. So presumably some people said, "I haven't heard of this Greene fellow, but that Rawl guy really sucks," and chose the guy they didn't dislike.
  19. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Reposting my stuff from elsewhere:
    You have a candidate that apparently had low name recognition (82% didn't know him), and low approval (only 5% knew him and approved of him) running against a candidate that no one knew, period, but was listed first on the ballot. So if you presumed everyone would vote (this is a bad assumption, but gives a starting point) you'd offhand expect 5% to vote for him, 13% to vote against him, and then split the remaining 82%. That gets you to a 54-46 loss for Rawls.
  20. Faces of Silas Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 11, 1999
    star 2
    Wasn't Code Pink heckling Speaker Pelosi?

    Actually the main culprit was a clever infiltrator planted by Conservatives. Spies are everywhere.

    And since when is Progressive a bad word?

    ?Progressive? isn?t a bad word. ?Progressivism? as an ideological objective, on the other hand, is an abhorrent concept.

    Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive.

    So were Woodrow Wilson and FDR. I suppose this mention of Theodore was dished out in an attempt to establish a parallel ? a suggested choice to set up a contradiction ? if I like Roosevelt, then Progressivism must be okay. Nice try.

    What's so bad about what the Democrats want to do? What do you dislike about their agenda? Do you know what their agenda is, post-Healthcare?

    Yes, I have a pretty good idea. One doesn?t have to look any further than FDR?s proposed Second Bill of Rights.

    The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
    The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
    The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
    The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
    The right of every family to a decent home;
    The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
    The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
    The right to a good education.


    All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

    Are you kidding me? These are not rights. These are not things that anyone is owed, although far too many people believe they should be. These are nothing more than objectives that may be worthwhile endeavors on a personal level ? not goals that government has any business promising or guaranteeing.

    The first question any sane person has to ask is, ?Who is to determine what is ?adequate,? ?decent,? ?fair? and ?good? in this list of Rights?" The government?

    This agenda is simply a pursuit of Socialism. Socialism works for bees, ants and a few species of migratory predators, but not for human beings.

    Would they just not legislate?

    Hey, that isn?t bad. I?ve got an even better idea. Before America regulates itself into oblivion, let?s try enforcing the laws already in existence.

    Pay to construct enough new nuclear power plants to no longer rely on fossil fuels for electricity?

    All for it. All forms of acceptable energy production as a matter of fact. Except NIMBY forces keep getting in the way. They talk a good argument. They just haven?t learned how to walk along in step with the rhetoric.

    Regarding the South Carolina Senate race: After being subjected to the news that a six-year dose of Al Franken was in the cards, nothing surprises me. What were Minnesotans thinking?
  21. Rogue_Follower Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 12, 2003
    star 6
    The Bill of Rights---and the Constitution as a whole---contained many vague statements that the legislature and courts have had to clarify. What are "unreasonable searches and seizures"? What is a "speedy" trial? What are "excessive fines" and "cruel and unusual punishments"?

    The government gets to determine such things because that is its role.
  22. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    Faces, you're proving the point that, like the GOP, a witty saying does not a governing philosophy or legislative agenda make.

    I want to know what my representatives' plans are; if I am in the mood for political comedy, I turn on Jon Stewart or The Colbert Report.

    What, exactly, is the GOP's agenda, other than "we're not Obama".

    That strategy worked wonders for John Kerry back in '04, let me tell ya.

    Peace,

    V-03
  23. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
  24. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    This may be me talking crazy, but wouldn't the important thing be the platform of the candidate you're voting for, not the party they're associated with?
    Granted, for example, I'm waiting to see if Meg Whitman comes up with a real platform and doesn't just run on "well, i'm not Jerry Brown" as we approach November, which is what she may well try and run on.

    Point being, the stances will vary candidate to candidate even within the same party.
  25. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    Thanks KW.

    Party platform matters, Lowie.

    For example, the GOP's insistence on rolling back women's rights and their opposition to stem cell research make it very, very difficult for me to support them, despite the promises of any "one" candidate. Yes, a northeast republican may not be as dedicated to the cause as a southern one, but over the past twenty years, it's been the harder right that has gotten it's way.

    I think it's perfectly reasonable to look at the platforms and priorities of each party when casting a vote. When it comes to social issues, the most rabid tend to be the loudest, and wield the biggest clubs. In terms of the GOP, the middle has not had much success in diluting the far right. I would at least give the dems more credit on this front, myself. The far left has been quite a bit more marginalized compared to twenty years ago, IMHO.

    Peace,

    V-03
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.