Election day results discussion thread

[amber]

I just freaked out looking at a map of which states were red and blue as far as Governors go. Everything is askew, it's bizarro governor red/blue world. All results aren't in, but still. VT and CA, red?! gar.

But seriously, I'm soo pissed 87 isn't passing. f*cknuts.

Um, yeah, great, CA is now a repub state. mmm.

[amber]

Originally Posted by sparky

So glad that Santorum is gone. Thank you Dan Savage. I would have preferred video of Santorum with a dick in his mouth, but I'll settle for him being gone.

I'm not totally thrilled with Arnold, but he's okay. I hate Angelides. And Cruz Bustamente, who I prefer to call Crusty Bustamove.

Voting was fun this year. I voted no on almost all the damned initiatives. No more money being spent ! Looking like a good night for Dems, so some balance might be restored on a national level. I just hope at least a few of them are strong on the whole immigration fiasco.

A) I hate you. Not really, I just really wanted some of those propositions to pass, and resent people who think "spending is bad" in a kind of blanket way. We all benefit when everyone benefits, if you see what I mean. I especially get mad when people vote against education things, as they always do. I at least hope you voted yes on 87 for alternative fuel, but whatevs.
B) Why do you hate Angelides? I really don't know that much about him, but I really hate Schwartzenlamer, a lot, mega. I broke my own rule this time, though, and didn't vote Green for Governor, voted Dem instead (I've only had that rule since last election). I wanted Arnie out that bad.

You know who I knew was really slick and creepy every since I saw him last election, and still think the same thing, even though he's a Dem?
Cruz Bustamante. *shudder*. Something about him just really creeps me out. It was an immediate and very visceral reaction when I first saw him. He's still creepy even though he lost weight, too - almost creepier. Is he gay? Does anyone know? Not that I'm saying that makes him creepy - I just sense something really off. He's so snakelike somehow, just seems really dishonest. He seems like a total self serving pawn.

Oh, and on a side note, it appears that any cigarettes we may buy won't be taxed. Hurray! Thank goodness! Lamers. hella.

[Nixxxed]

I'm freaking out. This Senate thing is killing me.

Virginia - *claimed* by Webb - over .5% difference, so Allen will have to pay for recount

Missouri - McCaskill wins, Rush becomes official pariah

Montana - Talent up up up

[DrummerDeanna]

Just got back from Republicanland....aka MY HELL!

It was horrid - and the congresswoman from my district won..boo - but at least the Dems had already taken control of the house by the time she was declared...

I'm way excited - but exhausted

[sparky]

Originally Posted by amber

A) I hate you. Not really, I just really wanted some of those propositions to pass, and resent people who think "spending is bad" in a kind of blanket way. We all benefit when everyone benefits, if you see what I mean. I especially get mad when people vote against education things, as they always do. I at least hope you voted yes on 87 for alternative fuel, but whatevs.

I voted for a few of the bonds for infrastructure. Against my better judgement and only because the roads are a disaster and the water problems are severe. I don't believe in running the state on credit cards and loans. But that's how most people live their lives, and bond measures frequently pass. I don't always vote against education things, but I have started to. Until the state gets a handle on illegal immigration, I will continue to vote against education measures. Especially with the state legislature wanting to give kids of illegal immigrants in state tuition. Drives me bat****. Pissed that school classes are to big ? Seal the f*ckin border already.

I voted against 87 too. Good idea, bad plan. Gas prices would just go up, and the plan had zero oversight. Another huge beauracracy was going to be set up with no clear cut goals. It was just too vague for me get behind.

B) Why do you hate Angelides?

He is charmless and had nothing concrete to say about what he wanted to do. I thought he was reactionary. He just bitched about Arnold and offered nothing else. If he's the best the Dems can come up with, they can't get my vote. I kind of like Arnold. He was the best of a bad lot. As far as Repubs go, I find him tolerable. I like that he took a stand on the global warming thing, and the fact that he actually works with Dems and doesn't shun them.

You know who I knew was really slick and creepy every since I saw him last election, and still think the same thing, even though he's a Dem?
Cruz Bustamante. *shudder*. Something about him just really creeps me out. It was an immediate and very visceral reaction when I first saw him. He's still creepy even though he lost weight, too - almost creepier. Is he gay? Does anyone know? Not that I'm saying that makes him creepy - I just sense something really off. He's so snakelike somehow, just seems really dishonest. He seems like a total self serving pawn.

He's a slimeball. But Fabio Nunez is worse.

Oh, and on a side note, it appears that any cigarettes we may buy won't be taxed. Hurray! Thank goodness! Lamers. hella.

2.60 a pack! Ridiculous. And a fraction of the money was to be spent on smoking stuff. I sure hope the imminent domain thing goes right. That **** is scary.

[BombaySapphire3]

Well homegirl gave her victory speech as the first woman Speaker of the House and at this late hour it looks like the Senate could go too.Can someone please start impeachment hearings against the gaggle of war criminals in the White House????

[amber]

Yeah, here's the county breakdown of prop 87 vote: Blue equals no, green yes. (it's the alternative fuels research bond). So predictable. Humbolt, and us, some of the beautiful coastal places down south. It boggles my mind that the central valley, and much of down south coastal, doesn't care that all their children have asthma, and that all the pollution blows over to them, that they can't eat the fish from their ocean. It also boggles my mind the amount of money spent by oil companies to win that victory. Also mindboggling is the fact that prop 87 offered incentives to reduce petroleum consumption, and also that it's goal was a modest 25% reduction of dependence on oil - and was to be funded on a tax of only 1% to 6% - even my broke ass broke ass would pay that (if I had a car) and yet, no. No, it won't pass.

It's so weird to me to think that I, I who (right now) could easily have nothing if slight amounts of money were taken from me - would be glad to give up some of that money if these problems are solved, but that a huge majority of people who have more money absolutely vote that these problems don't need to be solved. Yes, I know there are hella poor other poeple who vote against - but not that many. It's not really that much money. I don't get it. Perhaps I hold the stupid hope that humans are different than how they actually are. If it cost me...I dunno...20-100 more dollars a month in gas taxes - that seems a bargain, to me. A massive bargain. It's like the bargain of the century. Perhaps I am suprised that the selfish nature of humans (which is fine) can't project a tiny bit into the future and realize that they would be even happier and more fulfilled and have more abundance of all kinds with just a bit of compromise. They would be rich and rich. They may not have to work as hard for their money.

We can all see the detriment of oil consumption clearly - all of us in CA. I mean, you can see it, and you can see the results of it. It isn't some nebulous abstract concept, it's like "oh, my kid has severe asthma" and "oh, there is no fish left in our bay" and "Oh, there is an air quality warning for us out today, so don't breathe!"

Here's how the monies would have been dispersed for 87:
"58% for alternative fuels to reduce gasoline and diesel use, 27% for research and innovation acceleration, and 10% for commercialization acceleration. Fuels considered "alternative" are fuel blends consisting of at least 85% ethanol, or a fuel blend consisting of at least 20% bio-diesel"


Simple pimple, you would think. And I love how the commercials were all "Prop 87 doesn't require results!" - well, lets take a look at science. You can't "require" results of it in a certain time period with science. That's how pharmaceutical companies work, and we all know about pharm companies. The pressure to put out drugs that sell, the pressure for profit - the bazillions of dollars they funnel to the gov't.

You can only make scientists discover things "faster" to a point. And no one will discover anything if they don't have any funding. Which is what will happen, now. It's totally illogical to say "Prop 87 doesn't require results!" and then not fund anything - which also yields no results.

Which leaves these issues largely to private industry - for profit companies - which not only may be dangerous to humans, but by their very nature will not address the totality of the problems - it will mostly address problems that can yield profit. And when you put deadlines on that, and profit demands, it is imminently possible that the "product" may not be the best it can be. If you've studied your history, you know there are numerous examples of this problem. Just right of the top of my head I'm going to name Thalidomide. Also I will name the powerful big money lobby that, back in the day, evilized hemp (a much more efficient and useful plant) in favor of tobacco. Just saying.

If you don't pluck populace/other money for these things, All the people who already have money will control those things. And, since we know these people mostly are avaricious, it would be a huge folly to believe that any of them have any of our interests in mind. Well, they may have the well being of their fellow income bracket folk in mind, and of course there are other exceptions - some. But money talks, and people pay scientists to say what they want the public to hear. Easy as that, anyone can be bought. And anyone can put out science if their job depends on it.

Yet, somehow, humans don't understand that if they fund people to figure out complex sh*t, in a way that profits aren't the main issue, that that is the moment when their lives become better, and the lives of everyone around the world. They also can't figure out that if they don't fund education, that there may be many, many, many, many fewer people to have the opportunity to figure this complex sh*t out.

Okay, that's probably enough for one night. My $.02.
Whatever, Elections make me rant, just like everyone. Sorry about how it wasn't that well organized. Sometimes you just gotta flow.
Sucks that 67% of the county I am from (El Dorado) voted against. But of course. I remember, in fifth grade, our teacher asked us if we would vote for Reagan or Mondale. That's an age where everyone just does what their parents say. Only two kids in a thirty kid class raised their hand for Mondale. How did I ever survive?

[amber]

Originally Posted by sparky

I voted for a few of the bonds for infrastructure. Against my better judgement and only because the roads are a disaster and the water problems are severe. I don't believe in running the state on credit cards and loans. But that's how most people live their lives, and bond measures frequently pass. I don't always vote against education things, but I have started to. Until the state gets a handle on illegal immigration, I will continue to vote against education measures. Especially with the state legislature wanting to give kids of illegal immigrants in state tuition. Drives me bat****. Pissed that school classes are to big ? Seal the f*ckin border already.

I voted against 87 too. Good idea, bad plan. Gas prices would just go up, and the plan had zero oversight. Another huge beauracracy was going to be set up with no clear cut goals. It was just too vague for me get behind.



He is charmless and had nothing concrete to say about what he wanted to do. I thought he was reactionary. He just bitched about Arnold and offered nothing else. If he's the best the Dems can come up with, they can't get my vote. I kind of like Arnold. He was the best of a bad lot. As far as Repubs go, I find him tolerable. I like that he took a stand on the global warming thing, and the fact that he actually works with Dems and doesn't shun them.



He's a slimeball. But Fabio Nunez is worse.



2.60 a pack! Ridiculous. And a fraction of the money was to be spent on smoking stuff. I sure hope the imminent domain thing goes right. That **** is scary.

Wow. I almost totally disagree with you. But appreciate your explanations. I can't really get into how much I disagree, cause I don't want to argue with my Sparkelah. I will only say, I don't care that 87 didn't require results (but was explicit on what the percentage of money going to what would be) - at this point something is way, way, way, way, way, way, way, better than nothing. I balk when people bitch about "beaurocracy" - and make no mistake, repubs waste money like no other, they just don't talk about it - Defense spending is five billion times that of welfare - and then I think that those people don't truly understand what really wastes money, or who really wastes money, or what money is beneficial and may be required to make meaningful changes.

My god, the amount of money wasted by things people don't know about, and so never blame the people involved, is monumental, and has nothing to do with what you (and others) perceive as traditional scapegoat money wasters. Nothing at all. It's all talk, all surface, and everyone is fooled, they've been hearing it for so long.
Now is the time when Diss should pipe in and post all the specifics about how repubs and their ideas are bloatedly riddled with pork bellies and plans to make the rich richer. Bonds and Propositions included. How very much regular people are taxed under repubs while simultaneously tax cuts for the very wealthy are abundant, and also while people being told that cutting education, welfare, healthcare, is "fiscally responsible" - and how defense spending is really important - when anyone who actually looks at the numbers can see that they not only being swindled and robbed, while others better off are not, but that the nature of the swindle informs policy that is detrimental to themselves, and humanity as a whole, with far reaching pervasive consequences. It's funny. It really is.
It's like a common card shark on the street using sleight of hand and fast talk so that you can't guess the card. You still think that if you really watch carefully, you can win your bet this time - but you can't, and never do. Because it's rigged. Every time. And not in your favor.

I still love you, though. No big.
Ahem - So Cruz isn't gay? I guess his giant lie is simply all pervasive greed and powermongering. Hmm, the strength of his icky made it seem more unusual and subversive and socially unacceptable than that. What's another giant lie that could account for that?

And I voted for the cigarrette tax. *insert self righteous tone*

[BombaySapphire3]

Solano. a Bay Area county is blue by 58%?! Well I Guess Vacaville is pretty redneck.

[strandinthewind]

Also, isn't it ironic that Allen will likely call for a recount in VA. I am not saying he does not have the right or that he should not do it. I am just echoing the former sentiments of the GOP about letting sleeping dogs lie.

"the votes have been counted, and recounted . . . . . . . "

[strandinthewind]

November 8, 2006
A Virginia Recount Would Not Come Soon
By JOHN O’NEIL
Virginia’s election laws allow an apparent loser to request a recount if a contest’s margin is less than 1 percent — and the margin in the preliminary results of the state’s Senate campaign stood this morning at about one-third of 1 percent.

But while a recount seems likely, if it comes, it will not come quickly.

According to a statement issued this month by the state’s Board of Elections, any request for a recount cannot be filed until the vote is certified, which is scheduled to happen this year on Nov. 27.

After certification, a losing candidate has 10 days to file a recount request with the state courts. The petition will be considered by a court made up of the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court in Richmond and two judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the state Supreme Court. Those judges then set out guidelines for conducting the recount.

The costs of a recount are borne by the counties and cities conducting the review if the apparent margin of victory from the original count is less than one half of 1 percent, or if the candidate requesting the recount is declared the winner. With 99 percent of precincts reporting this morning, the margin between Senator George Allen, a Republican, and his Democratic challenger, Jim Webb, stood at less than 8,000 votes out of more than 2.3 million cast.

Last year, a recount involving the state’s attorney general race did not begin until Dec. 20th. The margin in that election was the closest in a statewide race in modern Virginia history, with Bob McDonnell, the Republican incumbent, leading his Democratic opponent, Creigh Deeds, by only 323 votes of more than 1.9 million cast.

Mr. Deeds conceded defeat on Dec. 21 after preliminary figures in the recount showed that he would not make up the difference.

www.nytimes.com

[strandinthewind]

I think it is so funny that people actually vote for tax increases as if they are really gonna do anything but pad the already felonious pockets of the politicians and corps. The Federal Govt. makes WAY too much money as it is. If they would stop the RIDICULOUS spending by both sides on crap like $100 hammers, $45 six packs of Coke in Iraq, no bid contracts, funding of art when we can't feed and care for everyone, a welfare system out of control, no price haggled meds, etc. We would have more than enough money, esp. considering we pay on average something like 25% or more to the Feds alone in income tax alone and then pay another 15% or so via phone taxes, Social Security, Medicare, excise taxes, etc. That is not even counting the Federal taxes like port taxes that are passed on to us via the price of goods. It also does not count the 25% or more paid in the various state and local taxes. So, I say FUKC any new taxes until the ridiculous spending is brought under control, which will never happen because both sides are beholden to the big corps (and I mean all of them)

I always use the phone bill as an example. Take a look at what you pay as a "tax." 911 emergency services is a seemingly good idea. Yet, when examined, it is a pork barrell. If Georgia has 10 million phones (and I submit it has at least twice as many as that as 5 million live in Atlanta alone and most people have a land line and then a cell for each family member over 12) and each phone pays $1.50 to fund 911 -- that is $180 million a year to fund and run 911 if there are just 10 million phones (I submit the figure is likely 20 million phones for $360 million a year) -- Give me fukcing break.

Then, the other taxes like the tax to ensure people in rural areas have phones (like $3.99 + a month or almost 1/2 a billion a year in Georgia alone using that 10 million phone low estimate) are just a result of Bellsouth's lobbying. Wouldn't you love to own your own business and have the governement pay for FREE most or a significant portion of your labor costs, which is what this "tax" does. FUKC THAT!

Then, the 9/11 fees for the airports. Who was paying this before? Why the airlines were. But, they aren't anymore and they are charging the same or more for tickets even adjusting for the more expensive fuel. Wouldn't you love for the govt. to pay for the security costs of your business FOR FREE. FUKC THAT!

So, I conclude that until BOTH the R's and D's stop acting like a silly woman with a credit card who can't balance her checkbook, I say FUKC THEM and their new taxes.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by amber

Wow. I almost totally disagree with you. But appreciate your explanations. I can't really get into how much I disagree, cause I don't want to argue with my Sparkelah. I will only say, I don't care that 87 didn't require results (but was explicit on what the percentage of money going to what would be) - at this point something is way, way, way, way, way, way, way, better than nothing. I balk when people bitch about "beaurocracy" - and make no mistake, repubs waste money like no other, they just don't talk about it - Defense spending is five billion times that of welfare - and then I think that those people don't truly understand what really wastes money, or who really wastes money, or what money is beneficial and may be required to make meaningful changes.

My god, the amount of money wasted by things people don't know about, and so never blame the people involved, is monumental, and has nothing to do with what you (and others) perceive as traditional scapegoat money wasters. Nothing at all. It's all talk, all surface, and everyone is fooled, they've been hearing it for so long.
Now is the time when Diss should pipe in and post all the specifics about how repubs and their ideas are bloatedly riddled with pork bellies and plans to make the rich richer. Bonds and Propositions included. How very much regular people are taxed under repubs while simultaneously tax cuts for the very wealthy are abundant, and also while people being told that cutting education, welfare, healthcare, is "fiscally responsible" - and how defense spending is really important - when anyone who actually looks at the numbers can see that they not only being swindled and robbed, while others better off are not, but that the nature of the swindle informs policy that is detrimental to themselves, and humanity as a whole, with far reaching pervasive consequences. It's funny. It really is.
It's like a common card shark on the street using sleight of hand and fast talk so that you can't guess the card. You still think that if you really watch carefully, you can win your bet this time - but you can't, and never do. Because it's rigged. Every time. And not in your favor.

I still love you, though. No big.
Ahem - So Cruz isn't gay? I guess his giant lie is simply all pervasive greed and powermongering. Hmm, the strength of his icky made it seem more unusual and subversive and socially unacceptable than that. What's another giant lie that could account for that?

And I voted for the cigarrette tax. *insert self righteous tone*

I voted YES on 87
in fact, here's how I went on the ticket…

YES on 1A-1E
YES on 83 (sex offender residence restrictions)
YES on 84 (water quality)
NO NO NO on 85 (parental notification act)
YES on 86 (cigarette tax)
YES on 87 (tax the oil companies to provide $$$ for alt energy research)
NO on 88 (education bond/property tax) **I usually vote yes for education**
YES YES YES on 89 (political/campaign reform)
YES on 90 (government may not "take" or condemn private property to promote other private projects--remember that community back east where people had their homes taken out from under them so a developer could make a shopping center on a lake? this prevents that. I hope it passes)


here's the current results for CA:


State Ballot Measures
97.7% ( 24525 of 25090 ) precincts reporting as of Nov 8, 2006 at 4:22 am

Statewide Results County Returns | Other Contests

Propositions Yes
Votes % No
Votes %
1A Y Transp Fund Protect 4,875,244 76.6% 1,493,167 23.4% Map
1B Y Hwy/Air/Port Bond 3,906,162 61.3% 2,476,018 38.7% Map
1C Y Housing Shelter Fund 3,668,325 57.5% 2,716,961 42.5% Map
1D Y School Facility Bond 3,614,675 56.5% 2,786,884 43.5% Map
1E Y Disaster/Flood Bond 4,045,387 64.0% 2,284,033 36.0% Map
83 Y Sex Offender Reform 4,538,164 70.5% 1,900,050 29.5% Map
84 Y Water/Flood/Park 3,395,833 53.8% 2,919,923 46.2% Map
85 N Parental Notificat. 2,970,461 45.9% 3,492,629 54.1% Map
86 N Cigarette Tax 3,137,125 47.8% 3,418,330 52.2% Map
87 N Energy/Oil Tax 2,946,653 45.3% 3,557,508 54.7% Map
88 N Educ. Fund/Prop. Tax 1,475,309 23.0% 4,913,297 77.0% Map
89 N Campaign Public Fund 1,612,241 25.4% 4,711,082 74.6% Map
90 N Eminent Domain 3,007,589 47.5% 3,321,887 52.5% Map

Y - Proposition is passing
N - Proposition is not passing

Well...................Im bummed about 89 and 90 of course, but 85 did NOT pass and 83 DID
Im actually MAD that 87 didnt pass. Them A**hole oil companies spent (edit: MILLIONS) to defeat it. MILLIONS. money which could have financed alternative energy research and development. Which we are going to need anyway as the world's oil is diminishing rapidly. Nobody in this state has any foresight!! except for me and Amber apparently

edited my exaggeration for Jason who just couldnt STAND it.

[strandinthewind]

Put it this way, it cost Rhode Island only $7 million to run 911 emergency services. I get that Rhode Island is a small state, but even if that number is multiplied by 20, that is only $140 million - - so where does the other $220 million of the very conservatively estimated $360 million go? if you have to think about that one too long, then this argument likely has gone over your head

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

. . . NO NO NO on 85 (parental notification act) . . .

That is such a cock o shiitte.

As with any child, 12 year old girls should not be able to get any medical prodedure without parental consent I cannot believe you support this. In the end though, it is a mountain out of a mole hill because how is that 12 year old girl gonna pay for it? Of course, you'd vote for free abortions for all, unless they are rich, which in that case, the rich should tithe to the abortion clinics and send their cars for the 12 year olds

Moreover, what happens if she goes to some horrid free clinic across the tracks and gets septicemia and dies from it. All because she was not required to let an adult help her.

Note - I would have voted against a parental consent law that did not have a judicial or other adult authorization provision.