• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

California May Have a Random Celebrity Republican as Governor Soon

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,981
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Well, maybe. Despite the Democrats having a boatload of women and minorities to choose from for President in 2020, they went with a bumbling, old white guy. :)

And let me be clear, there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that racism (and old money and executive misogyny while we're at it) played a role in that.
The interesting part is that the minority part of the party, voted for the bumbling old white guy. Generally white DNC in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada didn't vote for the bumbling old white guy, instead they were split among another bumbling old white guy and a young gay white guy. It was South Carolina that put Biden back into the race.
 

ideologyhunter

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2004
Messages
4,800
Location
Port Clinton, Ohio
Basic Beliefs
atheism/beatnikism
That he makes the lefties this hysterical means we should support him; at least for the entertainment value.

Stop for a moment, and just look at this comment.

Regardless of any specific context it might be in reference to, is there a way to view a comment like this in any way other than juvenile?

There was a time when right wingers wanted respect from others. These days, as Trausti proves here, they seem to prefer scornful derision.

I swear that right wingers will start promoting NAMBLA soon just to hear the "histerical" reaction from the "lefties."

This is a substantial part of Trump's success with the Repub base. What I found horrifying about Trump at the start -- his crude, childish, profane, and sadistic name calling -- turned out to be catnip to Main Street Repubs. They were waiting for someone to use barstool eptithets and scream them at Progressives. They weren't looking for education, taste, respect, and they damn sure weren't looking for statesmanship. They wanted someone to speak for their own belligerence. They couldn't believe the depths Trump took this to. He was dirtier and more delectable than they hoped.
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
That he makes the lefties this hysterical means we should support him; at least for the entertainment value.

Stop for a moment, and just look at this comment.

Regardless of any specific context it might be in reference to, is there a way to view a comment like this in any way other than juvenile?

There was a time when right wingers wanted respect from others. These days, as Trausti proves here, they seem to prefer scornful derision.

I swear that right wingers will start promoting NAMBLA soon just to hear the "histerical" reaction from the "lefties."

Owning the libs is making decent humans who care about their fellow man and society angry.
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,252
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Well, maybe. Despite the Democrats having a boatload of women and minorities to choose from for President in 2020, they went with a bumbling, old white guy. :)

And let me be clear, there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that racism (and old money and executive misogyny while we're at it) played a role in that.

Makes you wonder how Obama ever got elected by a landslide, with such pervasive racism. Or how Hillary won the popular vote in 2016 with all that misogyny running rampant.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
7,439
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Well, maybe. Despite the Democrats having a boatload of women and minorities to choose from for President in 2020, they went with a bumbling, old white guy. :)

And let me be clear, there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that racism (and old money and executive misogyny while we're at it) played a role in that.

Makes you wonder how Obama ever got elected by a landslide, with such pervasive racism. Or how Hillary won the popular vote in 2016 with all that misogyny running rampant.

Yeah, so wild. Almost as though racism were a factor, but not the only factor, and a factor that actually presents in a somewhat more complicated fashion than Black vs White.

#teachCRT

Do you think it a coincidence that the only Black president in American history was a man who was half-White (from a good New England family), and was extraordinarily cautious about his dialect, code-switching into AAVE only when in the exclusive presence of other African-Americans? This isn't a secret, Obama himself wrote many excellent autobiographies, most of which include extended reflections on what it's like to be Black in a society soaked in White supremacist ideology, and the sacrifices he had to make in order to meet his ambitions. I personally admire Barrack Obama quite a lot despite our political differences, and if you're suggesting that he did not have to struggle with systemic racism (or that Clinton's campaigns were unmarred by blatant, ugly misogyny) I think you're heading to the pitch without a bat.
 

marc

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
1,693
Location
always on the move
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, skeptic, nerd
They weren't looking for education, taste, respect, and they damn sure weren't looking for statesmanship.

Well in a way they are looking for 'respect'. But not actual respect, they want the 'respect' given to the bully. They want other countries to be intimidated into compliance, toadies that will do what we say or they get a beating.

I'm basing this on how they complained that the US was no longer respected when Obama took over (when in reality the US was regaining lost respect) and claimed Trump made us respected again (instead of the pitiful laughingstock we were)
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,358
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
They weren't looking for education, taste, respect, and they damn sure weren't looking for statesmanship.

Well in a way they are looking for 'respect'. But not actual respect, they want the 'respect' given to the bully. They want other countries to be intimidated into compliance, toadies that will do what we say or they get a beating.

I'm basing this on how they complained that the US was no longer respected when Obama took over (when in reality the US was regaining lost respect) and claimed Trump made us respected again (instead of the pitiful laughingstock we were)

Right wingers do a lot of projecting and exhibit much paranoia. Tribalism 101. It's interesting that inability to deal constructively with conflict or loss. I imagine that if we ranked persons on a Dunning Kruger scale such folk would score pretty high, higher than the average, whereas moderates and left wingers, armed with more knowledge - and likely a bit different brain architecture - would inhabit the opposite pole.
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
Well, maybe. Despite the Democrats having a boatload of women and minorities to choose from for President in 2020, they went with a bumbling, old white guy. :)

And let me be clear, there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that racism (and old money and executive misogyny while we're at it) played a role in that.

Makes you wonder how Obama ever got elected by a landslide, with such pervasive racism. Or how Hillary won the popular vote in 2016 with all that misogyny running rampant.

Some people understood where all the claims Obama was not a citizen came from and what drove them.

Trump was a leader on that front.

Stormfront.
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,252
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Makes you wonder how Obama ever got elected by a landslide, with such pervasive racism. Or how Hillary won the popular vote in 2016 with all that misogyny running rampant.

Yeah, so wild. Almost as though racism were a factor, but not the only factor, and a factor that actually presents in a somewhat more complicated fashion than Black vs White.

#teachCRT

Do you think it a coincidence that the only Black president in American history was a man who was half-White (from a good New England family), and was extraordinarily cautious about his dialect, code-switching into AAVE only when in the exclusive presence of other African-Americans? This isn't a secret, Obama himself wrote many excellent autobiographies, most of which include extended reflections on what it's like to be Black in a society soaked in White supremacist ideology, and the sacrifices he had to make in order to meet his ambitions. I personally admire Barrack Obama quite a lot despite our political differences, and if you're suggesting that he did not have to struggle with systemic racism (or that Clinton's campaigns were unmarred by blatant, ugly misogyny) I think you're heading to the pitch without a bat.

I didn't say it was the only factor. Its true there was racism directed towards Obama, I'm not denying that. People saying he was the first clean, articulate Negro to come along, etc. and other demeaning things. On the other hand, how many people went to the polls (who might not otherwise have gone) and voted for him mostly because he was black and they wanted our country to have its first African American President? Sure, most of them were African Americans, but no doubt a lot of non-blacks as well. Those people likely greatly outnumber the racists who voted specifically against him because he was black. Furthermore, even Obama himself when asked said that if he failed to win the Presidency, would it be because America is not ready for a black president, he responded "no", and said it would be because he failed to get his message across to the American people (paraphrasing a bit there).
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,123
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The latest numbers from the NYT:
62.8-37.2 at 92%
50-50: over threshold _ 58-42: 3-97


Well, maybe. Despite the Democrats having a boatload of women and minorities to choose from for President in 2020, they went with a bumbling, old white guy. :)

And let me be clear, there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that racism (and old money and executive misogyny while we're at it) played a role in that.
Makes you wonder how Obama ever got elected by a landslide, with such pervasive racism. Or how Hillary won the popular vote in 2016 with all that misogyny running rampant.
thebeave, look at the actual numbers rather than spout right-wing nonsense.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
28,059
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
The latest numbers from the NYT:
62.8-37.2 at 92%
50-50: over threshold _ 58-42: 3-97


Makes you wonder how Obama ever got elected by a landslide, with such pervasive racism. Or how Hillary won the popular vote in 2016 with all that misogyny running rampant.
thebeave, look at the actual numbers rather than spout right-wing nonsense.

Don't be so hard on the Beaver, Wally.

:rimshot:
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,252
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The latest numbers from the NYT:
62.8-37.2 at 92%
50-50: over threshold _ 58-42: 3-97


Makes you wonder how Obama ever got elected by a landslide, with such pervasive racism. Or how Hillary won the popular vote in 2016 with all that misogyny running rampant.
thebeave, look at the actual numbers rather than spout right-wing nonsense.

What numbers are you talking about, and what right wing nonsense am I spouting? Obama beat McCain in the EC in 2008 by 365 to 173. Not sure if that qualifies per se as a landslide, but its certainly not a close match. And Hillary got 65.9 million votes versus Trump's 63 million. :shrug:
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,123
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
What numbers are you talking about, and what right wing nonsense am I spouting? Obama beat McCain in the EC in 2008 by 365 to 173. Not sure if that qualifies per se as a landslide, but its certainly not a close match. And Hillary got 65.9 million votes versus Trump's 63 million. :shrug:
Using the electoral vote for Obama but not for Hillary Clinton, that's cheating. Obama did NOT win the popular vote by his electoral-vote margins in either of his Presidential elections. I had to go to the trouble of researching the numbers myself. thebeave, if I could do it, you can too.

If Republicans are much more likely to be racist then Democrats, then that is consistent with Barack Obama's margins of victory. Likewise for Hillary's popular-vote margin and Republicans being much more likely to be sexist than Democrats.
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,252
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The latest numbers from the NYT:
62.7-37.3 at 93%
50-50, 58-42: both over threshold

What numbers are you talking about, and what right wing nonsense am I spouting? Obama beat McCain in the EC in 2008 by 365 to 173. Not sure if that qualifies per se as a landslide, but its certainly not a close match. And Hillary got 65.9 million votes versus Trump's 63 million. :shrug:
Using the electoral vote for Obama but not for Hillary Clinton, that's cheating. Obama did NOT win the popular vote by his electoral-vote margins in either of his Presidential elections. I had to go to the trouble of researching the numbers myself. thebeave, if I could do it, you can too.

If Republicans are much more likely to be racist then Democrats, then that is consistent with Barack Obama's margins of victory. Likewise for Hillary's popular-vote margin and Republicans being much more likely to be sexist than Democrats.


Dude, you're kind of splitting hairs here. Here's what Wikipedia says about Obama's win:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_presidential_election

Obama won a decisive victory over McCain, winning the Electoral College and the popular vote by a sizable margin, including states that had not voted for the Democratic presidential candidate since 1976 (North Carolina) and 1964 (Indiana and Virginia). Obama received the largest share of the popular vote won by a Democrat since Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 and was the first Democrat to win an outright majority of the popular vote since Jimmy Carter in 1976. Obama's total count of 69.5 million votes stood as the largest tally ever won by a presidential candidate until 2020, when this was surpassed by both major party candidates in a high-turnout election. Obama flipped nine states that had voted Republican in 2004: Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia, as well as Nebraska's 2nd congressional district.

It was an impressive and decisive win for Obama, whether you look at EC or popular vote. Its widely known that Hillary lost the EC because she (and her supporters) was overconfident and she had a poor campaign strategy. She didn't campaign at all in Rust Belt states that had flipped to Trump. Not to mention that a lot of women voters went for Trump over Hillary. Had she done better with the women voters and the Rust Belt states, she would have won easily. I guess there are a lot of misogynistic women voters out there?!
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,123
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The latest numbers from the NYT:
62.7-37.3 at 93%
50-50, 58-42: both over threshold

The slow decline is due to counting votes in the more rural parts of the state, parts that tended to vote to recall Gov. Newsom. Still on track to be at least 62% no recall when all the votes are counted.


ETA: I'm now predicting 62.1 - 62.2 % final "No" vote.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
21,191
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Using the electoral vote for Obama but not for Hillary Clinton, that's cheating. Obama did NOT win the popular vote by his electoral-vote margins in either of his Presidential elections. I had to go to the trouble of researching the numbers myself. thebeave, if I could do it, you can too.

Obama won the popular vote both times (52.9 and 51.1%, respectively). Who cares that he did not win it "by his electoral-vote margins"?
Btw, Hillary did not win the popular vote. She got 48.2%. Better than Trump for sure, but well short of a majority. If US had a popular vote system for electing president like in France, there'd be a runoff election.

If Republicans are much more likely to be racist then Democrats, then that is consistent with Barack Obama's margins of victory. Likewise for Hillary's popular-vote margin and Republicans being much more likely to be sexist than Democrats.

Even if it were true that these things are "consistent" that does not mean they are true. Hillary lost not because of any "sexism" but because she was a horrible candidate.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
28,059
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Even if it were true that these things are "consistent" that does not mean they are true. Hillary lost not because of any "sexism" but because she was a horrible candidate.

Does that mean Trump was a great candidate?

Could you explain what you mean by horrible? What was horrible about Clinton?
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
7,634
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Dude, you're kind of splitting hairs here. Here's what Wikipedia says about Obama's win:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_presidential_election

Obama won a decisive victory over McCain, winning the Electoral College and the popular vote by a sizable margin, including states that had not voted for the Democratic presidential candidate since 1976 (North Carolina) and 1964 (Indiana and Virginia). Obama received the largest share of the popular vote won by a Democrat since Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 and was the first Democrat to win an outright majority of the popular vote since Jimmy Carter in 1976. Obama's total count of 69.5 million votes stood as the largest tally ever won by a presidential candidate until 2020, when this was surpassed by both major party candidates in a high-turnout election. Obama flipped nine states that had voted Republican in 2004: Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia, as well as Nebraska's 2nd congressional district.

It was an impressive and decisive win for Obama, whether you look at EC or popular vote. Its widely known that Hillary lost the EC because she (and her supporters) was overconfident and she had a poor campaign strategy. She didn't campaign at all in Rust Belt states that had flipped to Trump. Not to mention that a lot of women voters went for Trump over Hillary. Had she done better with the women voters and the Rust Belt states, she would have won easily. I guess there are a lot of misogynistic women voters out there?!

More, there are a lot of contrarian humans out there. If you tell someone they are are expected to behave a certain way, they will do the opposite out of spite.

In a lot of ways, Hillary was too demanding. "Vote for me, emphasize "HER"..

We could have avoided all this by any of a thousand people in the process actually heeding "the smart ones," and going with "she's with me" instead of "I'm with her"; the psychology of the two phrases is entirely different.
 

TomC

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
3,078
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Dude, you're kind of splitting hairs here. Here's what Wikipedia says about Obama's win:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_presidential_election

Obama won a decisive victory over McCain, winning the Electoral College and the popular vote by a sizable margin, including states that had not voted for the Democratic presidential candidate since 1976 (North Carolina) and 1964 (Indiana and Virginia). Obama received the largest share of the popular vote won by a Democrat since Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 and was the first Democrat to win an outright majority of the popular vote since Jimmy Carter in 1976. Obama's total count of 69.5 million votes stood as the largest tally ever won by a presidential candidate until 2020, when this was surpassed by both major party candidates in a high-turnout election. Obama flipped nine states that had voted Republican in 2004: Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia, as well as Nebraska's 2nd congressional district.

It was an impressive and decisive win for Obama, whether you look at EC or popular vote. Its widely known that Hillary lost the EC because she (and her supporters) was overconfident and she had a poor campaign strategy. She didn't campaign at all in Rust Belt states that had flipped to Trump. Not to mention that a lot of women voters went for Trump over Hillary. Had she done better with the women voters and the Rust Belt states, she would have won easily. I guess there are a lot of misogynistic women voters out there?!

More, there are a lot of contrarian humans out there. If you tell someone they are are expected to behave a certain way, they will do the opposite out of spite.

In a lot of ways, Hillary was too demanding. "Vote for me, emphasize "HER"..

We could have avoided all this by any of a thousand people in the process actually heeding "the smart ones," and going with "she's with me" instead of "I'm with her"; the psychology of the two phrases is entirely different.

Funny how perceptions work.

I had the feeling that by 2016 gender and race simply weren't important to the overwhelming majority of the electorate. Clinton kinda had to hammer it to benefit from the "Vote for the first female president EVAH!" thing. Otherwise people just wouldn't care.
Tom
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,123
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

TomC

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
3,078
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Dude, you're kind of splitting hairs here. Here's what Wikipedia says about Obama's win: (snipped for brevity)
At least you *tried* to do some research.

 List of United States presidential elections by popular vote margin - most Presidential elections don't have big popular-vote margins, and using electoral-vote margins or number of states carried is just plain cheating.  List of United States presidential elections by Electoral College margin

But if we're sticking to the subject, race/gender bigotry amongst the electorate, the popular vote is the most salient number. Both Clinton and Obama handily defeated their white male opponents, according to the U.S. people. That strongly suggests that we aren't as racist or misogynistic as certain people insist that we are.

Of course, there's a raft of other factors. I'm pretty sure the Democrats could have run Bozo the Clown in 2008 and won. Because the disastrous effects of Republican policies were far and away the most important considerations of voters.

Similarly, in the recent California recall, I don't think Larry Elder's race played any significant role. It's what he said that motivated voters. If anything, his race played a tiny part because a black candidate espousing his policies is a curiosity. That got him media attention. A white guy saying the same things would have been a nothingburger.
Tom
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
18,577
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
 List of United States presidential elections by popular vote margin - most Presidential elections don't have big popular-vote margins...

Funny how ONLY Republicans ever win while losing the popular vote... Not that they ... CHEAT or anything...

Both Clinton and Obama handily defeated their white male opponents, according to the U.S. people. That strongly suggests that we aren't as racist or misogynistic as certain people insist that we are.

Doesn't suggest that to me - unless we have different meanings for "we". It only suggests (to me) that there are not as many American racists as there are Americans who are not - or try not to be - racist. But our racists, as demonstrated by the critters who have crawled out from under their rocks in the last 5 years or so with Trump's encouragement, are really REALLY racist bigots, no less so than Germany's Nazis of the 30s-40s.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
7,439
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Similarly, in the recent California recall, I don't think Larry Elder's race played any significant role. It's what he said that motivated voters. If anything, his race played a tiny part because a black candidate espousing his policies is a curiosity. That got him media attention. A white guy saying the same things would have been a nothingburger.
Tom
Well, there was his platform, too. Republicans favor brainless celebrities as political candidates when possible; learning about candidates whose names you don't already know from tv and radio would take more work.
 

TomC

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
3,078
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Similarly, in the recent California recall, I don't think Larry Elder's race played any significant role. It's what he said that motivated voters. If anything, his race played a tiny part because a black candidate espousing his policies is a curiosity. That got him media attention. A white guy saying the same things would have been a nothingburger.
Tom
Well, there was his platform, too. Republicans favor brainless celebrities as political candidates when possible; learning about candidates whose names you don't already know from tv and radio would take more work.

Sorry I was unclear.

By "What he said..." I was mainly referring to the platform he said he would institute if elected.

Californians didn't like the idea of emulating Mississippi, so they got motivated to vote

Tom
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
7,439
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Similarly, in the recent California recall, I don't think Larry Elder's race played any significant role. It's what he said that motivated voters. If anything, his race played a tiny part because a black candidate espousing his policies is a curiosity. That got him media attention. A white guy saying the same things would have been a nothingburger.
Tom
Well, there was his platform, too. Republicans favor brainless celebrities as political candidates when possible; learning about candidates whose names you don't already know from tv and radio would take more work.

Sorry I was unclear.

By "What he said..." I was mainly referring to the platform he said he would institute if elected.

Californians didn't like the idea of emulating Mississippi, so they got motivated to vote

Tom

I meant the media attention; it was nearly guaranteed him for two reasons, either of which would have worked.

Personally, I do not understand why the media reacts to conservative Blacks with such feigned shock; do white people really meet black folks so rarely as to believe that they are somehow a politically homogenous group? They never have been.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
21,191
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Does that mean Trump was a great candidate?

Yes. He managed to capitalize on people's general discontent with the political establishment and to peel enough votes from Hillary to breach the "Blue Wall".

Could you explain what you mean by horrible? What was horrible about Clinton?
As a candidate she sucked. She made it all about her and her gender. She did not campaign enough in the Midwest. She made stupid comments like "basket of deplorables" that turned people off.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
28,059
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Does that mean Trump was a great candidate?

Yes. He managed to capitalize on people's general discontent with the political establishment and to peel enough votes from Hillary to breach the "Blue Wall".

Could you explain what you mean by horrible? What was horrible about Clinton?
As a candidate she sucked. She made it all about her and her gender. She did not campaign enough in the Midwest. She made stupid comments like "basket of deplorables" that turned people off.

Yeah, like the "deplorables" were ever going to vote for her. Not to mention she was right.

Do you have a list of these

Forget it. This is getting into derail territory.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,123
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The vote is now No: 62.2%, Yes: 37.8%, with >95% of the vote counted.

This is close to my earlier extrapolations.

I then counted up the votes in all the counties with 95% or less votes counted, and I used various assumptions about those counties with >95% counted.

With those counties at 96%, 98%, and 100% counted, I found 94.4%, 95.6%, and 96.9% of all counties counted.

There are 22 counties with <= 95% counted, from Lake with 39% to Marin and Inyo with 95%. The state has a total of 58 counties in it.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,123
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The vote is now No: 62.1%, Yes: 37.9%, with >95% of the vote counted.

The counts are not much different, with Shasta and Sacramento joining Marin and Inyo at 95% counted.

Opinion | Republicans’ trail of destruction may haunt them - The Washington Post
Indeed, part of the lesson of the California recall is that spotlighting Republicans’ extremism is a winner for Democrats. At times it seemed as if California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) was running against Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott (and his abortion bounty law) and Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis (and his insistence on banning lifesaving vaccine and mask requirements).

Republicans and their media surrogates are quick to point out that California is a deep-blue state, but GOP extremism on these issues certainly motivated Democrats to turn out — something Newsom’s campaign worried about for months. There is nothing like the specter of misogynistic antiabortion policy or Republicans’ willful refusal to fight a deadly pandemic to engage the Democratic base. Moreover, in stressing these issues, Democrats do nothing to alienate independents or sane Republicans. To the contrary, there are broad coalitions in favor of mask and vaccine mandates and against spying on and harassing women seeking an abortion.
Larry Elder did very little to disavow Republican extremism. When Republican activists objected to him conceding that Joe Biden was the legitimate winner of last year's Presidential election, he begged for a "mulligan". He didn't even try to stand by his statement, saying something like "We conservatives pride ourselves on being the mature ones, the realists, the ones who are willing to accept painful truths. There is one that we need to accept. It is that a left-wing extremist got elected President fair and square. There wasn't any massive Democrat election fraud. We ought to be good conservatives and accept it, rather than act like crybaby liberals."
 

blastula

Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
7,598
Gender
Late for dinner
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic atheist
Why do you think it is undemocratic?

It's been explained already. It allows for a new governor to be chosen by a small minority, and a smaller number than the sitting governor got against a recall. There are better recall methods.

Or misused?

Recalls should be over serious malfeasance, not for simple political disagreements. Those can be settled at next election.

And you'll probably reelect his incompetent ass too just because he has a D next to his name.

Yes, because of the D and that he is competent.

we don't care that you don't like somebody he stood next to.
You don't care he is standing next to a racist, anti-American and anti-Semitic terrorism supporter?

BLM-L.A. leader and anti-Semitism

I guess in the modern Democratic party no leftists are beyond the pale, no matter how extremist or vile.

That person that I (and probably he) had never heard of was not on the ballot. I guess you don't know how elections work.

That was the Dem's strategy, to not run any known Dems. I questioned it at first, that it would backfire if the recall did pass, but it turned out to be the right call because it set it up as more of a choice between a Dem and a Republican, and it's hard for a Republican to win statewide at this time.

It was a strategically sound move, but the downside is that you are stuck with Governor Goodhair.

Regardless of your unasked for piddling opinion, we're good. :)
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,123
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
What Larry Elder wanted:
 Mulligan (games) - "A mulligan is a second chance to perform an action, usually after the first chance went wrong through bad luck or a blunder. Its best-known use is in golf, whereby it refers to a player being allowed, only informally, to replay a stroke, although that is against the formal rules of golf. The term has also been applied to other sports, games, and fields generally. The origin of the term is unclear."

The vote is now No: 62.1%, Yes: 37.9%, with >95% of the vote counted.

The counts are not much different, with Marin, Shasta, and Inyo Counties at 95% counted. Sacramento and Los Angeles Counties are now >95%.

That makes the fraction counted 95%, 97%, or 99%, depending on whether the >95% are 96%, 98%, or 100% counted.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
7,634
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
It was a strategically sound move, but the downside is that you are stuck with Governor Goodhair.

Regardless of your unasked for piddling opinion, we're good. :)
'Stuck with.'
Odd term for someone who got a landslide win from the state's voters. They're stuck with the favorite.

Man I sure do hate it when I go to do something and I get stuck with getting exactly what I want! Really busts my chaps it does!
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,123
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The count continues, though slowly.

The vote is now No: 62.0%, Yes: 38.0%, with >95% of the vote counted.

The counties <= 95% have dropped from 20 to 15, with Shasta, and Inyo Counties at 95% counted, and with Marin and Sonoma Counties now >95%. The most populous of the <= 95% counties are San Joaquin and Kern Counties. SJ Cty is just south of Sacramento Cty, and Kern Cty contains Bakersfield.

The No vote is slowly dropping, and my estimates of the fraction counted are 95.6% - 97.5% - 99.4%. Only 75,000 votes need to be counted, out of nearly 13 million votes.
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,252
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The count continues, though slowly.

The vote is now No: 62.0%, Yes: 38.0%, with >95% of the vote counted.

The counties <= 95% have dropped from 20 to 15, with Shasta, and Inyo Counties at 95% counted, and with Marin and Sonoma Counties now >95%. The most populous of the <= 95% counties are San Joaquin and Kern Counties. SJ Cty is just south of Sacramento Cty, and Kern Cty contains Bakersfield.

The No vote is slowly dropping, and my estimates of the fraction counted are 95.6% - 97.5% - 99.4%. Only 75,000 votes need to be counted, out of nearly 13 million votes.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1XgFsitnQw[/YOUTUBE]
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,123
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
That 75,000 is my estimate for the counties with <= 95% counted. For the counties > 95%, I tried out 96%, 98%, and 100% counted.

The current "No" fraction, 62.0%, is a bit less than my prediction from 75% to 94% counted, 62.1% to 62.3%.

The final prediction of 538 was No 57.3% and of RCP was 58.3%.

I couldn't find any discussion of why this victory was so good. Democrats opposing Larry Elder? Republicans being discouraged because of their claims of election fraud?

-

I must discuss ways in which polls can be in error.

One way is sampling bias, reaching an unrepresentative selection of would-be voters. That was the great flaw of the Literary Digest's 1936 poll of the US Presidential election. It was a massive effort, but it focused on such things as car registration lists, things that were biased to more affluent people. By not correcting for this sampling bias, they got an embarrassingly wrong prediction of who would win.

Another way is statistical error. If one repeats random samples from a population, one will get different samples each time, and their statistics will be different. How much different can be calculated for some statistical distribution.

Considering the case of two choices, I set them to 1 and 0, and I find the statistics on the average value and how much it varies.


The choices have a probability p of being 1 and (1-p) of being 0. Their average is p, and the "standard error of the mean", the standard deviation of different samples' value of the mean is 1/sqrt(n) * sqrt(p*(1-p)) for n samples. That factor of 1/sqrt(n) is a very general one, and it is very useful for making rough estimates of sampling error.

For 1000 samples and p = 0.62, the SEM is 1.5%

That's for one standard deviation. Using a normal distribution for being less than 1, 2, and 3 standard deviations, the probability is 0.68, 0.95, and 0.9973.


The current result is about 3 stdevs greater than 538's final result, so it's barely more than what one would expect from sampling error.
 

Cheerful Charlie

Contributor
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
6,029
Location
Houston, Texas
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
It was a strategically sound move, but the downside is that you are stuck with Governor Goodhair.

Regardless of your unasked for piddling opinion, we're good. :)
'Stuck with.'
Odd term for someone who got a landslide win from the state's voters. They're stuck with the favorite.


Apparently not that many people wanted to get stuck with Larry Elder the idiot.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,273
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism
'Stuck with.'
Odd term for someone who got a landslide win from the state's voters. They're stuck with the favorite.


Apparently not that many people wanted to get stuck with Larry Elder the idiot.
Makes you wonder why anyone would want to be stuck with someone bad when they could be stuck with someone significantly worse.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,123
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The count continues, though slowly.

The vote is now No: 62.0%, Yes: 38.0%, with >95% of the vote counted.

San Joaquin Cty is now >95%. Only 14 counties <= 95%. Their estimated uncounted votes is now 53,000. At this rate of vote counting, it should be done by the end of this week.

ETA: Shasta, Imperial, and Inyo Counties are at 95%, Kern, Yolo, Tehama, San Benito, Del Norte, and Colusa Counties at 94%, Napa County at 93%, Humboldt County at 87%, Alpine County at 80%, Modoc County at 76%, and Lake County at 39%.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,123
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Yesterday, the vote was No: 62.0%, Yes: 38.0%, with >95% of the vote counted.

Only 11 counties then had <=95%, with Del Norte, Humboldt, and Yolo Counties then having >95%. Only about 41,000 votes in the <=95% counties uncounted.

Today, the vote is No: 61.9%, Yes: 38.1%, with >95% of the vote counted.

Only 9 counties now have <=95%, with Kern and Napa Counties now having >95%. Only about 25,000 votes in the <=95% counties.

I notice a lack of change in the counts in the <=95% counties. Almost as if there is a team that goes from county to county, counting up the stragglers. At that putative team's rate of counting, the count should be done tomorrow or Monday. Tuesday will be 4 weeks after Election Day.

Shasta County is the most populous remaining county, though it is only second in uncounted votes. The champion there is Lake County.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,123
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Imperial is now >95%, with some more votes counted. That county is at the southeast corner of the state. Only 7 counties remaining, with some 23,000 votes to count.

San Benito and Inyo Counties are the only ones remaining that are south of the San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento; all the others are north of those two urban areas.

The strongest Yes to Recall votes came from the northeast area of the state, and that area overlaps with a proposed secession: southwest Oregon and northern California as the state of Jefferson. Proposals for its southern border vary: Mendocino - Plumas and Mendocino - Placer with a southern extension into Madera. Both proposals include several "Yes" counties with only a few No counties.  Jefferson (proposed Pacific state)
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
7,439
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Ha! Jefferson can't have Madera County, that's in the South Valley. They're always trying to gerrymander their proposed state in to bizarre shapes, for fear that the inclusion of any cities of size will turn the new state blue. They're right to worry, but why should anyone else feel inclined to let them create a new, octopus-shaped Wyoming?
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,123
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Madera County is due east of San Jose, and it's more like at the center of the Central Valley. Bakersfield, in Kern County, is at the south end of that valley.

I've seen secession proposals for far-northern California, as it may be called, southwestern Oregon, eastern Oregon, and eastern Washington State, either making new states or else joining Idaho to make some Greater Idaho.


That aside, Tehama County has some votes counted, making it join the >95%. Only 6 counties remain, with about 21,500 votes uncounted in htem.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
7,439
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Madera County is due east of San Jose, and it's more like at the center of the Central Valley. Bakersfield, in Kern County, is at the south end of that valley.

I've seen secession proposals for far-northern California, as it may be called, southwestern Oregon, eastern Oregon, and eastern Washington State, either making new states or else joining Idaho to make some Greater Idaho.


That aside, Tehama County has some votes counted, making it join the >95%. Only 6 counties remain, with about 21,500 votes uncounted in htem.

I know exactly where Madera County is - two counties south of where I grew up in central California. And the idea that they're going to be allowed to cookie-cutter their way around four major metropolitan areas including the state capital, just to claim a bit of rural Madera county for their own, is silly.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,123
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
One of the proposed maps includes Stanislaus County, which means that Jefferson will partially encircle Sacramento. Politesse, I don't know which "four major metropolitan areas" you are referring to, because I count the San Francisco Bay Area as one metropolitan area. With Sacramento, that makes two.


Shasta and Colusa Counties are now at >95%, and the four remaining counties are Lake 39%, Modoc 76%, San Benito 94%, and Inyo 95%. I expect San Benito and Inyo Counties to be next, since the stragglers counted so far are mostly at 94% or 95% counted. My estimate of votes to count in the four remaining stragglers are 17,400.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,123
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The <=95% counties are now Modoc 76%, Lake 93%, San Benito 94%, Inyo 95% -- about 4,500 votes to go.

Lake County got a big jump in counted votes.


A very interesting book on American regionalism is Colin Woodard's "American Nations", a successor of Joel Garreau's "The Nine Nations of North America" and David Hackett Fischer's "Albion's Seed".

CW has a map of the 11 North American cultural nations, and the three most relevant ones here are El Norte, the Left Coast, and the Far West.

El Norte is from settlers who came from Mexico - it has southernmost California and a coastal strip northward to a little beyond Los Angeles -- Imperial, Riverside, San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, and San Luis Obispo Counties.

The Left Coast is from settlers from the eastern US and Canada, and it extends further northward, starting at Monterey and San Benito Counties. It includes the counties that surround San Francisco Bay, Mendocino, Humboldt, and Del Norte Counties, the counties around the Willamette Valley in Oregon, the counties around Puget Sound in Washington, and Vancouver Island and the nearby mainland in British Columbia, Canada.

The Far West extends from these two regions eastward across a large stretch of arid, mountainous, and thinly populated territory. It is culturally very different from the coastal regions, thus the talk of secession.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,220
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
'Stuck with.'
Odd term for someone who got a landslide win from the state's voters. They're stuck with the favorite.


Apparently not that many people wanted to get stuck with Larry Elder the idiot.

The fact that the top contender for QOP was Larry Elder shows what an utter joke this recall effort, and the QOP party more generally, have become.



Ha! Jefferson can't have Madera County, that's in the South Valley. They're always trying to gerrymander their proposed state in to bizarre shapes, for fear that the inclusion of any cities of size will turn the new state blue. They're right to worry, but why should anyone else feel inclined to let them create a new, octopus-shaped Wyoming?
I did a crude study on partitioning California. I found that almost any segment of California defined solely by two lines of latitude would have a blue-voting majority. Even the far north would be dominated by populous blue-leaning Humboldt County.
 
Top Bottom