Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So much for the 'Blue Wave'.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • So much for the 'Blue Wave'.

    Well it seems that the democrats didn't win big at all. In fact CA is starting to move to the right as more and more people wake up to the fact that the Dems are hopelessly corrupt.
    Credo quia absurdum.


    Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

  • #2
    What's really got the Democrats in California peeved is their "Top two" plan didn't work and make it a straight Communist... err... Democrat ballot for the election.

    Comment


    • #3
      Last edited by Trung Si; 06 Jun 18, 20:15.
      Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

      Comment


      • #4
        True, I was pleasantly surprised that Republicans somehow managed to blunt the blue wave in yesterday's jungle primary election in California. I think we got a good chance of landing few more Republicans in office in November. I think the key is Cox campaign, if he can do it efficiently and make enough push into these deep blue areas where pocket areas of conservatives holding out still remain, then he has a chance of winning the governorship despite California tilting to the left.

        Moreover, if Cox can compete on par with his Democratic opponent, it may create a ripple effect affecting other races, especially House seats. If Republicans could keep at least half or more of California House seats, then there is a good chance of Republican Party retaining the majority in US House of Representatives. A lot will ride on what Californians decide to do in November.

        Keep your fingers crossed.

        As a Californian resident, I'll do my part in fighting back the blue wave. Not much, but at least something is better than doing nothing and sucking my thumb sitting on the couch.
        Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

        "Aim small, miss small."

        Comment


        • #5
          Our brothers in the Caliban are fighting the good fight. Our prayers are with you!
          Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
            Our brothers in the Caliban are fighting the good fight. Our prayers are with you!
            Yea! Stay there and fight it out, donít move here and ruin our state!
            Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
            Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
              What's really got the Democrats in California peeved is their "Top two" plan didn't work and make it a straight Communist... err... Democrat ballot for the election.
              What is the "top two" plan?
              I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

              Comment


              • #8
                How it works in CA is the top 2 candidates with the most votes in the primary goes up against each other in the general election in Nov. Had 2 Democrats garnered the most votes, there would be 2 Democrats running for governor. That was their "Top Two" dream that didn't happen.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Percy Coburg View Post
                  How it works in CA is the top 2 candidates with the most votes in the primary goes up against each other in the general election in Nov. Had 2 Democrats garnered the most votes, there would be 2 Democrats running for governor. That was their "Top Two" dream that didn't happen.
                  Correct me if I'm wrong -- and I may very well be -- but aren't California's primaries "closed," in that only voters registered as Democrats before a certain date may participate in the Democratic primary, and only voters registered as Republicans before a certain date may participate in the Republican primary? If that's the case, then two wholly different sets of voters are participating in the respective party primaries. Indeed, the various primary candidates are running for different prizes, ie their parties' nominations, not for an actual elected office, as they do in the general election. If I'm right in looking at this from a closed primary point of view, then this "top two" plan is utterly nonsensical.
                  I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                    What is the "top two" plan?
                    The primaries are open in California now. That means anyone can vote for anybody running they want to. The top two vote getters in the primaries move on to the general election regardless of party. That in turn means if the top two vote getters are Democrats in the general election you have your choice of Democrat 1 or Democrat 2.

                    The intention of the Democrats in California who passed this pretty much unilaterally, was that they could push candidates throughout the state and in most of it get two Democrats on the ballot shutting out the Republicans from even being the ticket. It also pretty much ends any third party candidate appearing on the general election ballot as they'll never make it past the primary.

                    It's a version of Socialist and Communist party election processes in countries with what amounts to elected dictatorships. Everybody on the ballot is in the ruling party. There might be a few opposition candidates allowed, but they're too few to overthrow the ruling party. Mexico was like that for decades with PRI. Venezuela is like that. Zimbabwe does it. The USSR and other Communist states did and still do this.

                    What has shocked and really pissed off the Democrats is their plan in California didn't work this election cycle. Instead of getting lots of House races where the Democrats locked out Republicans, they are facing the same sort of ticket they usually face there with competitive Republican candidates in many of the races they'd normally be competitive in.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I think that Democrat held states are beginning to move towards these sorts of election processes to ensure they retain their power in those states and shut out competition. Maine is another state that's going to a system that favors Democrats: Ranked choice voting

                      https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartandhp

                      Many Democrat states are also changing their electoral college system to one that gives their electors to the person who gets the most nationwide popular votes versus who wins in their state alone. Again, the intent is to favor the Democrat candidate and shut out a possible Republican win.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                        I think that Democrat held states are beginning to move towards these sorts of election processes to ensure they retain their power in those states and shut out competition. Maine is another state that's going to a system that favors Democrats: Ranked choice voting

                        https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartandhp

                        Many Democrat states are also changing their electoral college system to one that gives their electors to the person who gets the most nationwide popular votes versus who wins in their state alone. Again, the intent is to favor the Democrat candidate and shut out a possible Republican win.
                        Then why was the big worry in CA that the dems would of been not had a canidate in three races.

                        Actually I think for house races this is a pretty good system. Not so sure at the senate level and governor

                        for example if the republican vote for the conservative dem and some dems for that person you could get some movement on the monolith (yeah I know it wishful thinking but hey )

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                          The primaries are open in California now.
                          So you're saying that they were open previously, before this "top two" rule change?

                          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                          That means anyone can vote for anybody running they want to. The top two vote getters in the primaries move on to the general election regardless of party. That in turn means if the top two vote getters are Democrats in the general election you have your choice of Democrat 1 or Democrat 2.
                          By what margin do registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans in California? In New York State, Dems outnumber GOP'ers by a 5-to-3 margin.

                          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                          The intention of the Democrats in California who passed this pretty much unilaterally, was that they could push candidates throughout the state and in most of it get two Democrats on the ballot shutting out the Republicans from even being the ticket. It also pretty much ends any third party candidate appearing on the general election ballot as they'll never make it past the primary.
                          Why not just resort to classic gerrymandering? It's worked so well for two centuries. Why go with this bizarre and frankly mind-boggling complex plan?

                          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                          It's a version of Socialist and Communist party election processes in countries with what amounts to elected dictatorships. Everybody on the ballot is in the ruling party. There might be a few opposition candidates allowed, but they're too few to overthrow the ruling party. Mexico was like that for decades with PRI. Venezuela is like that. Zimbabwe does it. The USSR and other Communist states did and still do this.
                          PRI was special, even by authoritarian standards. They were evil geniuses, compared to the Chavistas, who come across as a bunch of Pros Doofenshmirtz.



                          If left to their own devices, they're sure to implode.

                          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                          What has shocked and really pissed off the Democrats is their plan in California didn't work this election cycle. Instead of getting lots of House races where the Democrats locked out Republicans, they are facing the same sort of ticket they usually face there with competitive Republican candidates in many of the races they'd normally be competitive in.
                          What kind of evil geniuses are CA's Democratic bosses, eh?
                          I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                            I think that Democrat held states are beginning to move towards these sorts of election processes to ensure they retain their power in those states and shut out competition. Maine is another state that's going to a system that favors Democrats: Ranked choice voting

                            https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartandhp

                            Many Democrat states are also changing their electoral college system to one that gives their electors to the person who gets the most nationwide popular votes versus who wins in their state alone. Again, the intent is to favor the Democrat candidate and shut out a possible Republican win.
                            That again sounds Rube Goldberg complicated. In '04 Bush beat out Kerry by a fairly comfortable margin. Then Maine's electors will go to the Republican, even if the state went Democrat. That honestly makes no sense.

                            I thought that the point of changing one's Electoral College procedures was to make one's state more relevant in presidential elections, not less.
                            I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Hey Tag, you mentioned this in the white nationalism thread, but I thought it more appropriate to raise this question here: under this new "top two" open system, is it possible for one person to vote in both the Democratic and Republican primaries? Might that not result in more ballots cast than there are registered voters in a given precinct?
                              I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X