|
While I approve the creation of the thread, OP should have named it "No Foodchat Zone" given how badly the last one got derailed (and was retired to live out the rest of its days in Tourism & Travel)
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 14:47 |
|
|
VikingofRock posted:While we are complaining about Jerry Brown, he also vetoed collective bargaining rights for graduate student researchers at the UCs. Meaning it is still legally prohibited for them to form a union--even though they have to deal with stuff like their advisors overworking them, taking credit for their work, or asking them to grade papers (that's the TAs'/readers' job). That is a very good question. EDIT: Us in CA District 17 will likely deal with the issue raised in the above link twice this year. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 06:25 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
Rah! posted:While it certainly does happen, it's a myth that there's a huge amount of reverse city-to-suburb commuting in SF (I've heard more than a few people claim that "everyone in SF reverse commutes to Silicon valley now!"). The most recent census stats show that 85% of employed San Franciscans work in San Francisco (and another 200,000+ workers from the suburbs come into SF every weekday). To be fair, there probably are more reverse commuters in SF now than in the past, and they have been in the spotlight due to the whole tech worker shuttle bus drama...but they make up a small fraction of SF residents. Same with tech workers for that matter. The tech industry is the fastest growing part of SF's economy and has gotten tons of attention, but the majority of people who work in SF have nothing to do with it. On the topic of the tech buses, activists have filed lawsuits against all involved in the recent agreement, seeking to halt implementation as no environmental study was performed. In the off-chance that that sounds odd to you, the intent of the activists is to use the "displacement of citizens" criterion of the report to attack (and, one would assume, "hopefully" block) the decision for its gentrifying effects.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:The meta-argument "tell all the Apple drones to go live in Apple land instead of ruining our city" does have some ground-level sanity to it. If the coffee-pourers cant afford to live in SF then it makes sense that there will be a backlash against the Apple drones driving rents up "because they can". (Telling low-wage workers to commute in and out of SF is ridiculous. Adjusting the system to make it less attractive to bigger-money vultures makes political sense from a local perspective.) But the buses are only the most visible part of the issue. Even if the Apple and Googleites moved to the South Bay tomorrow, you'd still have the same gentrifying effects caused by the startup culture that now infests Downtown (e.g. Twitter). And of course, what would happen if these South Bay companies said they were moving to San Francisco? Now the buses are gone, and you've fixed the mismatch between the employee's place of work and place of play, but you've only served to aggravate the gentrification problem. While you are right that the meta-argument is indeed sound, it's only a thin veneer over the fundamental issue caused by high housing demand and low housing supply (as are the debates over the Ellis Act). That software companies happen to have the money to throw around to get their employees into the few openings for housing that exist only highlights who the haves are, and attacking them won't fundamentally change supply, even if demand slackens somewhat.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
I'd rather be rid of Ro Khanna in the first round, but I suppose it will feel good to vote against him twice.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
TheOneAndOnlyT posted:Can someone explain to me what is so lovely about Khanna? I wasn't planning to vote for the guy but I'm having trouble finding information about him that doesn't come from a Honda campaign ad. Khanna is backed by many of the big tech CEOs and is basically the latest in a set of milquetoast corporate Unsurprisingly the San Jose Mercury-News (which I understand to be rather conservative) recently endorsed him to replace Honda (who likely has my vote in part for voting for the Amash amendment). While I agree we need younger representatives, I'm not inclined to support a pro-corporate representative who denounces the incumbent's support of the Progressive Caucus budget on the basis of "huge tax increases" and clearly is hoping to vote for a Grand Bargain in the name of "consensus and compromise." ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 00:46 on May 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 14, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Hog Obituary posted:
Hey now, sometimes you just have time to read the headlines.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2014 06:40
|
|
that's what you got out of the article?
|
Family Values posted:Cupertino is adding more high density housing. There are at least two large developments underway, but I bet it will have a negligible effect on the SF commuters. Very probably. The only person I know who lives in the City Center complex moved there because his girlfriend got a job in Campbell after working in SF and, unlike him, doesn't have the opportunity to use an Apple bus to get there. He'd probably have stayed in SF if not for that.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Hundreds of thousands if not millions of people literally cannot afford to pay the rates you're demanding without pulling up stakes, selling their homes, and moving. Turning a bunch of middle class property owners into renters again and moving them further from city centers so the wealthy can swoop in and buy their property isn't a net gain for society. Sometimes issues are more complicated than "gimme money". As opposed to today, where we merely deny the young the ability to become homeowners in the first place as the wealthy still swoop in and buy the property of the middle-class when the latter no longer have a need for it. But since the young don't have skin in the game I guess it's okay to do it to them. gently caress you kids, got mine. If you want affordable housing so much why don't you suck it up and move out to Richmond? What? You want good schools for your children too? Well maybe you should have had the foresight to buy a house in Palo Alto 5 years before you were born. Someone has to pay the price (literally) for the artificially suppressed property tax regime and become a generation of itinerant workers. We're just arguing over whether current homeowners or the next generation should be the ones to "suck it up and take one for the team." Normalization of house prices will be a bitch, but it'll crash faster if Prop. 13 forces a glut of houses to enter the market, driving prices down due to oversupply, as opposed to keeping prices high long enough to complete the mass transfer of property from individual homeowners to the rentier property management companies who, other than the CEO of the latest startup and the occasional mainland Chinese factory owner looking for a place to put his hard cash for safekeeping, are the only ones able to afford the prices at today's rates. But like you said, 13 is a third rail so suck it up you kids. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 15:41 on May 27, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Devastating in a way where Californians are already paying the 4th highest taxes in the country even without it? I've got no problem removing it on commercial or business properties but forcing everyday homeowners to shoulder the burden of rampant overspeculation through taxes is bullshit. You seem to be talking as if the fact that people are locked into property taxes based on 1970s and 1980s home prices, effectively starving the tax base, isn't part of the problem (though the supermajority needed to pass other spending/taxation changes plays a role too). And keep in mind that the new homebuyers are paying that 1% on property worth upwards of $500k rather than the <$100k it was worth in the 70s or 80s, so they're paying 5-10 times as much compared to Boomer households that had the "luck" of being alive in 1981 to buy their house when it was last up for sale. And as for "speculators driving the price gains" I don't think you're acknowledging the strong incentive to buy and hold property instead of selling it, effectively depressing the number of units on the market, driving costs even higher. Granted, reversing Prop. 13 isn't going to be a silver bullet even if it WERE to happen, since there are tons of other factors driving house prices up (like NIMBYism holding back development of condos and other denser development which would otherwise help to release some of the buyer-side pressure caused by California simply being a desirable place to live, never mind the presence of speculators and property management firms with money to spare)
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Prop 13 allows property taxes to rise at the rate of inflation. At a maximum of 2% per year. What? The long-term inflation rate is 3-4%? You don't say!  natetimm posted:You're talking about a tax liability rising from around 1k/year to around 6k/year. 500 bucks a month for property tax is loving ridiculous for your average middle-class family. Except that this is exactly the rate that today's middle-class families have to pay if they don't already have the fortune of having purchased their house 3-4 years before they were born, since the property value is reassessed upon sale of the house. But I guess this is okay since they don't already own a house.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
natetimm posted:The idea that prop 13 is somehow hamstringing CA's ability to collect taxes or fund programs is complete bullshit. Except that it absolutely plays a role by forcing the state and local agencies to rely on higher income, sales, and capital gains taxes, particularly the last two. This is why our sales taxes are among the highest in the nation and one of the big reasons the 2008 downturn hurt us so badly (i.e. a heavy dependence on capital gains taxes in that case, which is why we've been hearing so much about funneling them into a rainy day fund from here on out to help smooth their proceeds out).
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:REVENUE NEUTRAL goddamnit and my point is that you totally ignored the "income tax" part of that statement so that you could pretend he was saying grandma is going to save six grand a year on sales taxes. He knows what he's doing by changing the terminology. He means exactly what he says. Unless everyone pays exactly the same in taxes as they do now, he's against it. "Wait, doesn't that mean that any change to the tax code isn't 'tax neutral'?" you might say. Well, now you're catching on. natetimm posted:Sorry, rich fucks, us poor people got smart to your house pricing poo poo and made sure our families will have a legacy despite you. Yup. All those rich people who can't afford to buy a new house because Prop. 13 helps prop up house prices. All those minimum wage workers in San Francisco doomed to a life of wage slavery with no hope of home ownership are just trust fund babies in disguise trying to steal houses from the REAL poor! Who knew? Please pay no mind to the hedge funds who are the only ones able to pay cash for these properties at their current inflated prices. They're merely playing by the rules of the game unlike those whiny rich wage slaves, and they deserve the riches they'll rightly obtain by owning that rental home in perpetuity.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
natetimm posted:I just said: let's expand it to all native Californians backdated to the median house price the year they were born. I agree it's unfair, so instead of eliminating it let's expand it to make it more inclusive. What? You moved here after college? You must be a millionaire software guy. There are no such things as starving artists who move to California because Podunk, KS gives out no arts funding. Every actor who comes out here always makes it big! Grapes of Wrath was a fairy tale and no one really moves to California without making it big! I suppose you support giving in-state tuition only to native Californians too? Would definitely save some money to keep those illegal Texan immigrants from getting a cheaper education. Maybe while we're at it we can restrict the vote for the California Assembly to people who were born in California too. People who didn't grow up here know nothing about our strange ways and water rights, so why should they have the right to vote on them until they've at least bought a house here and paid full taxes on it. But hey good run on trolling the thread. That was a good proposal to go out on.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:So, serious news. Apparently some businessman from Washington bought the Clips. I for one am terrified, and having nightmares of a time when the Clippers go north and the Lakers get repossessed by Minneapolis. Well, Seattle did recently lose its team... 
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:But seriously, where the gently caress do I find information on the primary? I'm new to the area, so the internet is no good since I don't know what to look for and I haven't made any politically-minded friends here yet. This site is all you need to know about the next governor of California 2014. But seriously, you should probably check out your local county's election offices. I know you said you're in Oakland, so I can't directly point you anywhere but (presumably) the Alameda County's Registrar of Voters website. I'm in Santa Clara County, and am currently reviewing the mailed sample ballot myself, so I can't help you with statewide offices at the moment, although I am, as always, rather torn with respect to the Peace and Freedom Party. In principle I agree with their platform, but there's plenty of reason to believe that they're far more interested in appealing to voters crassly rather than through a genuine engagement with the issues (c.f. their nomination of Roseanne for president in 2012 and Cindy Sheehan for governor this year). Stewart Alexander's stance, following Roseanne's nomination, spoke volumes to me, even if I might (personally) not agree with him 100%.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
Xaris posted:Except it requires paying the postage yourself Yeah I hope you registered by May 27. Otherwise you cannot vote, as your registration would be received too late. I'm lucky to live right next to my polling place, so I can just stroll over in the morning, and then hop on my bike to work. I'd be surprised if I won't be the youngest person to vote there by 25 years though  Anyway, it seems to me that your D&D-approved best options for governor are Sheehan, Brown, or Rodriguez. The rest appear to largely be Republicans or (crypto-)conservatives. I'm personally leaning towards thinking that Rodriguez is probably the best choice there (in contrast to the usual Green Party closed-mindedness), given that Brown will likely sail to the generals. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
Xaris posted:I did. I've had them filled out sitting on my counter for nearly three weeks, I just keep forgetting to buy stamps and it's the principle of the matter. It should really be free but I just looked and my polling place isn't too far so I'll just drop them off there tomorrow. No, that won't work I believe. The forms themselves had to be received by the registrar by the
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
A COMPUTER GUY posted:I'm voting Donnelly because I want to watch the ensuing meltdown While it would be fun, I'm a sucker for voting on principles when I can, which is what makes the Controller race so disappointing (I'd vote Laura Wells (Green) based on politics, but it's basically either Betty Yee or John Perez to be up against Swearengin in November, and I'd rather see the former than the latter) Also, guess who's running for Attorney General (at least that election is easy, everyone else besides Kamala Harris is either Libertarian or Republican so...) EDIT: Oh good, there IS a PSL candidate (running as Peace and Freedom) ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Mind expanding on this? One of the segments of Forum briefly talked about the race a couple days ago (starting about 8:25) EDIT: The California Report is where I heard the most about it though. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
^^^ I agree, and it's why I've made a note to vote Ellen Brown as my Treasurer candidate. But I'm still torn on the Controller ticket, even if Wells wants to audit Prop 13 . ^^^ Some wonderful bond arguments going on in the lower/mid-Peninsula by the way, with respect to a bond measure to help improve the many open spaces along the Santa Cruz Mountains, Measure AA (text markup has been unedited from the voter's pamphlet): quote:Think about this for a moment: this government agency claims it will require $300,000,000 to turn an unused piece of land into an unused piece of land. They then add (in their argument against), that "Under the language of this measure, there is no telling how the $300 million will be used (except generally to purchase and maintain open space areas as provided in its Section 3). The section refers to an "Expenditure Plan" containing "priority actions" with lots of possible projects; however, no project is assured" and then demand that the proponents explain "how much money each of the many possible projects listed in the current 'Expenditure Plan' would cost", which the measure explicitly does (see the bottom of the measure), not that they seem to care. It is all very entertaining to see Libertarian whining about taxes though... EDIT: P.S. If you don't want to vote for a Super Genius who "has tremendously used his Super Genius brain to the benefits of the American Students by instilling in them skills, confidence and competence in solving ANY Mathematical problems" for governor, there is always the choice to vote for the candidate whose campaign promises include "To all 100% people of California.", "We seen past twenty." and "East or west will be best on planet earth." ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 06:59 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
etalian posted:The monsters are planning to build trails just for dogs at the cost of millions of dollars!!! It's rather entertaining. As is Orly Taitz's statement for the Attorney General position: quote:Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. is both a licensed attorney and a licensed doctor in CA, a businesswoman, a wife of 27 years and a mother of 3 sons. Taitz is seeking to uphold constitutional and civil rights of Californians. As an AG, Taitz will do the following: nullification of unconstitutional NSA spying on law abiding citizens of CA; nullification of use by NSA of Google, Facebook, Yahoo, and others as a tool in unconstitutional data gathering on citizens of CA, as well as candidates for office, elected officials, and judges; nullification of an unconstitutional discriminatory Obamacare tax levied on some of the citizens of CA and waived for corporations; homeowner and creditor assistance from recovered mortgage proceeds instead of funneling funds to cronies, targeted extortion, and shake downs; nullification of EPA mandates which destroy businesses and agriculture in CA and deprive the state of water badly needed for farming; nullification in CA provisions of trade agreements, such as TPP, TAFTA, NAFTA, WTO-GATT, which deprive citizens of work and environmental protection, as well as jobs, wages, and benefits; nullification of NDAA provisions which allow indefinite incarceration without trial; nullification of unfunded federal mandates which bankrupt businesses and state; end elections fraud; remove invalid voter registrations from databases; seek legitimacy of candidates; prosecute state officials who ignored all evidence brought by law enforcement and experts, showing Obama to possess citizenship of Indonesia, fabricated Selective Service certificate, fabricated birth certificate and a CT Social Security number, which failed both E-verify and SSNVS. Incidentally, bad news for anyone who supports the Six Californias initiative: Republican Attorney General candidate John Haggerty will likely oppose the initiative, as he merely supports the right of Californians to separate into two states!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
Mayor Dave posted:I voted for Tim Donnelly I didn't even ask how many had been at my polling place, but it's in a hospice/care facility so I suspect it's just that I'll be one of maybe 5 sub-30-year-olds all day. EDIT: Also, you convinced me to vote Green Party line instead of settling for Betty Yee for controller. Better to vote my conscience given that it's not like either D will be substantively different aside from Yee's somewhat greater experience. 
ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
Dave47 posted:In 2002 French leftists split their first round Presidential votes across a dozen parties, and consequentially faced a meaningful Round 2 choice between a conservative and a fascist. Several cases in point in this election that I've already mentioned:
EDIT: Basically, unlike non-jungle primaries, you are strongly incentivized to vote for a bland centrist twice: first for the most electable candidate on your side of the political aisle (even if they are "too centrist" for your liking) to try to siphon away the most votes in the general, and then for the lesser of two evils (because the people on the opposite side of the spectrum will have done the same to maximize their party's chances of success, too). ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Jun 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
nm posted:Not always. I live in a majority dem district. There were 2 republicans, a bunch of dems, and some others. To be fair, with how mutable the California proposition system is, I suspect Top-Two will be gone within 10 years of this scenario happening in the gubernatorial race leading to a Republican governor. Would be better if it was gone now, but not much can be done about that yet.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
Mayor Dave posted:Wait, there are people who are actually going to vote for Leland Yee? After literally being accused of gun running? Betty Yee (no relation)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Think Yee's gonna have a name-conflation problem? We're at least marginally better informed than the general public and still at least two people here confused her with Leland. Well with 6% in, she's currently leading, though not by a large margin, so it's not hurting her that badly. Swearengin seems to be suffering from the fact that there is a second Republican on the ballot splitting her votes, effectively making this a 4-way race. It's unclear at the moment who will make it to November of any of the two Democrats and two Republicans.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
etalian posted:lolling at how people still go to the polling station in California. I've done mail-in voting plenty before. I dunno. I just feel good casting a ballot in person for the second time since getting out of college/university...  Also, my nearest polling place is literally next door to my apartment complex so...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Hey look a split dem vote for controller leads to two reps leading. The margin is close enough that a Democrat could still end up going to the general, depending on what's outstanding (Yee is only ~10k votes behind Evans). That said, it's obvious that if all the Democratic votes were pooled together, they would best the Republicans jointly, so it's entirely possible that Tammy Blair's presence could actually spoil the Democratic vote enough to bring both Democratic candidates below both Republicans. It also doesn't help that the highest turnout is in Republican counties, and aside from LA County, many of the counties with >90% of precincts outstanding are Republican leaning (Orange has only 8.5% of its precincts in, for example). ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Jun 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Don't worry, I'm sure we'll blame the Green and not the 3 Democrats. State Bank? What are you? Mad? Should have voted for a Democrat! At least they would have gotten elected if you'd spread your 5% of votes evenly across all Democratic candidates! Tammy Blair? Not her fault! At least she had the guts to run as a Democrat!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm sure the 2 candidates with ~5% of the vote will be equally blamed, but the greens will use their usual "third parties are important" bs to run again and again. While at best the democratic machine further constricts who can run, to prevent republicans from beating them by doing the same. Which is to say...I'm grumpy that we just ignore the mathematical realities of our electoral systems. Part of the Top-Two system is that there is no restriction on who can claim to be associated with which party. The Republicans can theoretically run 13 candidates claiming superficial affiliation with the Democratic party to confuse voters and there is little the Democratic party can do about this but spend advertising money to try to promote the "correct" Democratic candidate. Granted, you might get caught, but that probably won't prevent ALL of those candidates from making it onto the ballot, and you probably will get a slap on the wrist at best (Vanlandingham was kept on, and has done his job in preventing Vanila Singh from getting the votes needed to make it to the general. Khanna was not indicted.)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:How does that not fail in the same way the previous system was ruled unconstitutional because it forced the parties to support candidates without their consent? Because it turns it on its head. Rather than a party having to accept affiliation of multiple candidates on the ballot, you'll note that the ballot is designed so that the candidates instead express a "party preference". This frees a party to endorse only one (or no) candidate if it so chooses, while also supporting the right of each candidate to affiliate with a particular party by expressing that party as the candidate's "preference." The fact that this is effectively indistinguishable to the voter is a feature, not a bug. EDIT: With a little over 40% in, EDITx2: Nearing 50% in, and Alameda's margin is clearly pulling Yee closer, as she's now within 7k votes of Evans, but this conversely means that Evans can expect to grow that gap back with many of the rural counties still incomplete and Alameda nearing 70% reporting. Yee may still pull ahead of Evans as Los Angeles comes in, but Perez's relative popularity there means that her margins will grow more slowly than they do with Alameda's votes being added to the total. EDITx3: With only San Bernardino significantly outstanding at this point (19.7% in; everyone else nearing 50% in at least) and strongly favoring Evans over Yee by a nearly 2 to 1 margin in the precincts that have been counted, it looks like Evans has about 40k more votes than Yee still outstanding to count (he ran up the margin considerably more in rural areas than Yee was able to gain in urban areas), so it looks very probable that the Controller race will be a Republican-Republican race in November. Granted, I could be wrong, as this was just a raw county-by-county analysis of margins assuming that each uncounted precinct contained roughly as many voters as the counted ones, but the board definitely strongly suggests that Yee will be unable to close the gap on Evans. EDITx4: With more precincts in, the gap narrowed to anywhere between a 2k marginal gain for Evans to a 10k marginal gain for Yee, but Evans is still ahead by 12k votes, so it's still unclear if Yee can close the gap. Mendocino County remains a question mark as it's nominally in Yee's column, but with only 3.2% in, it probably isn't hiding as many Yee votes as I have tabulated. On the other hand, Perez is gaining on Yee thanks to his margin in LA County, so it's possible he may be able to top both Yee and Evans in the end. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 08:32 on Jun 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
Ammat The Ankh posted:Well, it looks like Dem John A. Pérez managed to eke out a second place finish over Republican David Evans for Controller. 21.7% to 21.6% As mentioned above, with less than 10k votes separating second and fourth place, this is going to depend on the results of proper canvassing and possibly a recount (though I don't know CA's rules on that account). It's unlikely Yee will top Perez, but 2.5k votes is small enough that Evans may yet make it to November. While the number of provisional ballots will likely be low in this low-turnout election, it may still make a difference. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Jun 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
etalian posted:On a side note how that wild high speed rail coming along? Kern County just added a new lawsuit to the pile, while the state is still busy appealing Kings County's previous lawsuit that's blocking access to bond money. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Jun 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
redscare posted:This race was one of several that made me want for an "against all" option. What, David Curtis didn't deserve the nod?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Honda is pretty bland, though I have nothing in particular against him (he used to be my rep until the last redistricting) so I hope he can defend his seat. Honda voted for the Amash Amendment, unlike Pelosi up in SF, and he is a member of the Progressive Caucus, which Khanna has pretty much stated he won't be. Khanna slammed Honda's support for the House Progressive Caucus budget this year in a Mercury-News editorial claiming that doing so was insufficiently bipartisan for his liking. Honda also appears to have a strong record on civil rights (having, you know, been a victim of Japanese internment during WWII). Honda might not be any particular standout politician in the House, but he's a hell lot more reliable as a progressive than Khanna will ever be.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
An update on the controller race: As the canvassing continues, as of this morning(?) Betty Yee has narrowly taken the lead ahead of Pérez (751,691 to 751,340), so it's possible that the Democrat that gets the nod for the fall will do so by only a few hundred votes. Evans is in a firm fourth for the moment, though it's worth noting that a lot of the counties that have yet to send in a county canvassing update are in strong Republican territory (and no counties have finished their canvassing), so this could change.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
etalian posted:SV is not so much loony rand businessmen like Palantir's Thiel but center left corporate friendly democrats. See also Ro Khanna's very real chance at knocking off Progressive Caucus member Mike Honda with Republican support thanks to Top-2.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
[Phone Double Post]
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 14:47 |
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:Considering Pando's recent takedown of Khanna as a nothing sandwich with a bit of corporate schmear, this is pretty alarming. Honda netted below 50% (48.5%) in the primary. If every Republican switched to vote Khanna and the higher overall Republican turnout stays for the general (as would be expected for a midterm), Khanna would win. On the other hand, that assumes that Republican voters actually choose to vote in a race with two Democrats on the ballot and know enough to vote for Khanna over the incumbent. That said, these primaries are almost certainly going to have lower turnout than the generals, and, if anyone was energized, it was likely to be Republicans (due to the gubernatorial race), rather than Democrats (who might not have been as aware of the congressional race). But it's very likely to be a squeaker either way.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2014 05:33
|
|