?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Hawk's Inner Sociopath The Latest Victims Criminal Archive Criminal Profile Previous 50 Victims Previous 50 Victims Next 50 Victims Next 50 Victims
The California election results are making me crazy. I have to keep… - Hawk's Eyrie
It's all about releasing your inner sociopath
merhawk
merhawk
The California election results are making me crazy. I have to keep reminding myself that there's only 33% reporting, and that we still have a chance to not let the Insurance Companies codify in law pricing that really only benefits them via Prop 17.

And how is the PG&E prop barely being defeated at this point? Really - Prop 16 is even more naked power grabbing than 17.

And I burn with anger of a thousand suns if that power-hungry, incompetent, should be run out of anything that involves power idiot beats Tom Campbell. Fiorina. Fiorina? I wouldn't let her shine my shoes, let alone send her to Washington to lead. She's more than proven she has no knowledge of how to do that without destroying what follows her.

It's not full reporting. It's not full reporting. It's not full reporting. We might still get Tom Campbell. We might still be able to beat Barbara Boxer in the Fall.

Tags: ,

20 talons or Rake your talons?
Comments
smolder From: smolder Date: June 9th, 2010 12:00 pm (UTC) (Permanent Entry Link)
out of curiosity, why do you dislike BB?
merhawk From: merhawk Date: June 9th, 2010 02:34 pm (UTC) (Permanent Entry Link)
She's a follower, not a leader. I want someone who will lead, not someone who waits until others propose good ideas and then gets fiercely behind them, acting like she actually has the capacity of thinking of something like that.

And since Fiorina has massively beaten Campbell (boo! hiss!), it looks like I'll continue to have Boxer as my Senator.
smolder From: smolder Date: June 9th, 2010 08:21 pm (UTC) (Permanent Entry Link)
I am not really disagreeing with you. I give Republicans consideration--I even tried to see if I could support McCain.

Here is my issue, and I don't know how you feel about this. I love moderate Republicans like Campbell and I wish the whole GOP was dominated by them. This is not the case, though.

During Bush's reign of terror, these moderates all remained in lock-step with their President. They didn't oppose his right-wing court nominees or object to his socially conservative policies. The only time they stepped out of line was to unite with moderate Dems to scuttle the "nuclear option."

My point is, what is the use in supporting moderate Republicans if once we install them into their seats they simply become mouth-pieces for the conservative base?

What I really wish is that there would be an uprising of moderate Reps, forming their own party. I really think a socially liberal, fiscally conservative party would kick ass in this country.
(Deleted comment)
merhawk From: merhawk Date: June 9th, 2010 02:38 pm (UTC) (Permanent Entry Link)
At least both Prop 16 & 17 went down. Not in flames like they deserved, but they went down.

And, yeah, Prop 14 is a feel good measure that hasn't worked elsewhere. BF & I discussed the likelihood of some of the "nightmare" scenarios that were posited could happen with this, and statistically thought they were unlikely.

Electoral reform is good. Blindly doing what other states have done, after it's been proven to not make any difference, is a waste of money.
(Deleted comment)
merhawk From: merhawk Date: June 9th, 2010 06:41 pm (UTC) (Permanent Entry Link)
17 was a blind money grab by Mercury Insurance.

I suspect that it comes down to socio-economic: IIRC, it's generally people who have money and more leisure time who vote. And the people who would really be effected by this, IMO, are not in that group. It'd give me a discount. But I feel that would be at the expense of someone who doesn't have the money to afford to pay that much.

My premiums aren't that bad.
From: mikeda Date: June 9th, 2010 11:26 pm (UTC) (Permanent Entry Link)
There's also the point that the two highest-profile races were on the GOP side. Which probably boosted GOP turnout, therefore helping both propositions.

(And I suspect that another dynamic was at work in Prop 17--backer with enough funds to frame the issue the way they wanted it framed.)
mhnicholson From: mhnicholson Date: June 12th, 2010 02:21 pm (UTC) (Permanent Entry Link)
While the nightmare scenario of a party being shut out of the main ballot is unlikely, there is another nightmare available that is almost certain to happen.

Let's say there is a close race in the Democratic primary. One candidate is polling way ahead of the Republican incumbent, and the other is not. The primary race among Democrats gives a small edge to the candidate that is likely to win the general election, so a bunch of Republicans use the open primary to vote for the Democrat who is likely to lose, even though they have no intention of voting for that person in the general election. The result is that the GOP gets to decide who the Democratic Party candidate is, and to stick them with a loser.

That happened last time we had an open primary. It'll happen again.
mhnicholson From: mhnicholson Date: June 12th, 2010 02:26 pm (UTC) (Permanent Entry Link)
please add "by a 2nd candidate of a smaller party" to the above.
(Deleted comment)
merhawk From: merhawk Date: June 9th, 2010 02:35 pm (UTC) (Permanent Entry Link)
Heh.

She's a follower. Not a leader.

I vote for leaders.

Whenever I have that choice, that is. And I'm quite disappointed I won't have that choice in November.

Edited at 2010-06-09 02:35 pm (UTC)
(Deleted comment)
merhawk From: merhawk Date: June 9th, 2010 02:49 pm (UTC) (Permanent Entry Link)
Which is why I refuse to vote for Fiorina. I'm irate at being stuck with Boxer, because Campbell actually had a decent chance of taking her down in the November election.

Tom Campbell is practically a wet dream for me. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative, and understands how to work with & compromise with others as necessary.

It's no surprise, when you look at the voting map, that Fiorina didn't win a single Bay Area county. Not only does this area know about what good Campbell did when he was in the US House, but we also remember what Fiorina did when she was in charge of HP.

Long memories around here.
(Deleted comment)
merhawk From: merhawk Date: June 9th, 2010 03:02 pm (UTC) (Permanent Entry Link)
ROTFLMAO.

You don't know Campbell, then.

It's not always about who's in what party. It's also about who will do the best job to represent my state, and our nation.

There needs to be more to the job requirement of Senator from California than "but she's liberal!". That's selling everyone short.
(Deleted comment)
merhawk From: merhawk Date: June 9th, 2010 06:58 pm (UTC) (Permanent Entry Link)
They need to think of both.

More importantly, and perhaps more precisely:

I don't want someone who will boondoggle for the state if it's bad for the nation.

I want someone who has specific values, morals, whatever you want to call it, and uses those to guide them through the legislative process for the nation. Someone who will give the perspective of a Californian, while acting on behalf of the nation.

That doesn't mean all jobs need to be funneled here, for example, but it does mean that one would expect California Senators and Representatives to lead on the environmental issues that are currently before the US Congress.
From: mikeda Date: June 9th, 2010 11:37 pm (UTC) (Permanent Entry Link)
Campbell wouldn't have led on environmental (or any other) issue. At least not in the way that you appear to want him to.

He'd have been a down-the-line right-winger whenever it counted. He simply wouldn't have been given any choice in matter.

(Aside from the remote possibility of him switching parties, that is.)




mhnicholson From: mhnicholson Date: June 12th, 2010 02:06 pm (UTC) (Permanent Entry Link)
Hawk. We all love you to death, but this notion of Mr. Campbell, super-leader who will buck the GOP whip even though it means his loss of funding and any hope of winning a primary is ignoring the 100% record on filibusters for the GOP.

The worst thing about this election is that I'm going to have to spend months listening to Carly the Ax talk about how great she is at creating jobs.

If Boxer wants to win, she should shift messages around early October (or perhaps at a debate if there is one) to say the real reason we've been losing jobs if that out-of-control CEOs are paying themselves $90 million for results that aren't even mediocre. How dare Carly fire 50,000 workers and then tell us that she knows how to create jobs.



20 talons or Rake your talons?