It’s now evident that my enthusiasm about a Harris victory was premature.
As the provisional and absentee ballots come in, it appears that it may take weeks before the Attorney General race is decided.
Thursday morning, Ace Smith, Harris’s campaign stratagist, had a phone conference with reporters and said he thought her 2 percentage point lead would hold.
But, despite his optimism, what really happens in this race is anybody’s guess.
Frank Stoltz at KPPC has a bit more.
Can’t we just have Ira Reiner do a coin toss?
Ace Smith has a curious affinity with reality. Kamala Harris has never enjoyed a “2 percentage point lead.” At best, it was 0.2 percentage points. That’s where it is currently with Harris at 45.9 and Cooley at 45.7.
One topic Ace wisely steered clear of, is how spectacularly poorly Cooley appears to have polled in his home county. In adjacent counties such as Kern, Riverside, Ventura, San Bernardino and Orange, Cooley polled admirably, besting Harris by around 58% to her 34%. However, Los Angeles County’s figures appear to more akin to San Francisco; virtually a reversal of what one might have expected considering Cooley has won handily three times as DA, ousting Democrats in the process.
Once all the remaining ballots are verified and counted, it is statistically possible that Cooley will emerge the winner albeit by a slender margin. It is also possible, however, that Harris could maintain her slender lead.
In either event, one thing is a certainty; there will be a recount, and then, perhaps, then the mystery of Los Angeles County will be solved. It is through the recount process that mistakes are revealed and oversights are often corrected.
No matter who wins, I’m glad Harris got as close as she did. It’s a sign that this state is finally starting to understand that the lock ’em up mentality is not the end all be all of fighting crime.
I doubt you could make a case that Cooley has that mentality Rob. In fact I’m sure you can’t or you would have done so instead of make the statement you did. On the other hand, Harris is a liar and I feel comfortable I can make that case.
I won’t do it now, but if you’d like to debate the issue let me know.
Harris never lied about anything.
Which means you can’t defend your Cooley comments and know nothing about Harris…figures.
Harris lied when she said not one murder that’s been presented “so far” to her office was worthy of going after the death penalty along with saying she had no knowledge of the problems at the SF drug lab.
You can find the info on-line or keep living in denial, I could care less.
What’s you guys take on the CNN poll that has Huckabee and Romney ahead of Obama for 2012 right now?
“Harris lied when she said not one murder that’s been presented “so far” to her office was worthy of going after the death penalty along with saying she had no knowledge of the problems at the SF drug lab.”
Sounds to me like a legal opinion not a lie.
That’s not a lie, Sure Fire. It’s a disagreement in policy. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a liar.
ATQ, if Obama and the Dems don’t hire Dean back or at least take a page out of his playbook and start fighting Republicans, both Romney and Huckabee would beat Obama in a landslide.
What’s you guys take on the CNN poll that has Huckabee and Romney ahead of Obama for 2012 right now?
I would say that two years is a lifetime in the political cycle these days. Romney, in particular would have a hard time running against a health care plan roughly similar to the one he signed into law as governor of Massachusetts.
As for Huckabee, the electoral college math would be against him. I don’t believe most Americans want to elect a president who doesn’t believe in evolution.
We’ll see.
LP, I was thinking a lot about Dean during this election. Rahm was always his antagonist. He’s one of the brightest men on the Dem’s team. I would love to see him as head of the DNC again.
Randy,
A whole lot of politicians that identify themselves as Christians won Tuesday. There was one back in 2008 that identified himself as “a born again Christian” that is now residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
I think you’re placing way too much emphasis on that. People’s religious views are becoming less and less important to the national electorate. That’s why Romney ( a Mormon) is beating Obama in a poll.
The only people that really give a shit about that anymore is the vehemently anti-religion crowd. Those numbers are shrinking more and more every day. Simply because people are beginning to realize that what church a guy goes to, or doesn’t go to, isn’t what makes them an effective, or ineffective, leader.
The vast majority of people (moderates) in this country aren’t afraid of having a “born again” as the President, just as they are not afraid of having a Mormon in the big seat.
It’s only a factor to people who hate religious people with a purple passion. The vast majority of Americans aren’t like that.
Answering The Question Says:
November 5th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
The only people that really give a shit about that anymore is the vehemently anti-religion crowd. Those numbers are shrinking more and more every day. Simply because people are beginning to realize that what church a guy goes to, or doesn’t go to, isn’t what makes them an effective, or ineffective, leader.
………….
I’ll believe that when more Muslims are elected into power.
It’s not a legal opinion Visitor, it’s a lie. The law is clear on what constitues special circumstances where the death penalty can and should be applied. California voters have made their feelings clear. She just picks the penalty she’ll go for and doesn’t even have to give a legal opinion on why she made her decision, all she has to say is here’s my choice.
When Harris, who has stated the final decision on asking for death penalty is hers alone, refuses the recommendation of her staff to ask for it because she’s anti-death penalty claims no case worthy enough has been brought to her she’s lying. Think her staff hasn’t made that recommendation?
Harris said she’d never ask for it and that’s fine. To say no case brought before her ever merits asking for it is disgraceful and a violation of the oath she took.
As AG all she’ll do is answer to cases under appeal, but she’s still an elitist and egotistical leftist who puts herself above those she serves.
It’s not a disagreement in policy when Harris stated that no case ever brought to her had the circumstances attached that warranted a death penalty being asked for.
That is a giant lie. I don’t expect the truth from far leftists like you Rob and nothing anyone here says will change her words.
“Jack” predictably goes to an absurd extreme again in his blind defense of Cooley.
“iIt is through the recount process that mistakes are revealed and oversights are often corrected,” he concludes.
It’s all over the blogs that Cooley is implying something shady going on to have deprived him of what he felt was an annointing – and so he had to cancel the morning press conference with his puppet “Clown Carmen” in tow no doubt to take on his blessing as heir apparent for DA. (SCARY THOUGHT, these two who have NO critical capacity vis-a-vis each other, or their third partner Baca who was to have been there as well, taking over virtually all of law enforcement in SoCal!) Talk of “criminal aspects,” sound familiar? (His protege made that allegation before he even took office and had to eat his words, sans proof.)
WHAT “mistakes and oversights” are you people talking about and implying wrongdoing in, Jack? You think that if Harris won the county DESPITE heavy hitting against her and for Cooley by the L A Times and the Police Protective League (the rightwing Weber- Novey clique discussed here earlier which also chose Whitman and Essel) it has to be fraud? NOT finally waking upto the real Cooley and his arrogance?
Of course too, Harris benefited from the strong pull of Brown over Whitman, somewhat by Boxer over Fiorina, too. Fear of those two rich women buying their way into office finally woke up the Dems who sat out elections last year.
If Cooley goes that route just because his sense of entitlement proved unjustified he’ll tarnish his legacy further than he has already – inflicting that crass lawyer from Long Beach upon us.
Watching SF and Rob from the sidelines, and not knowing too much about Ms. Harris, I decided to do a little homework.
So I googled “cases where Kamala Harris asked for the death penalty”.
Here’s the first link that popped up.
San Francisco News
Harris won’t seek death penalty against Ramos
SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) — San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris said Thursday she will not ask for the death penalty in the murder of a man and his two sons, more than a year ago. A suspected gang member is charged with the killings and critics are asking whether Harris can get elected attorney general, when she is opposed to capital punishment.
Harris opposes the death penalty but she says when these cases come before her, she picks a committee of senior prosecutors to review the facts and they recommend whether or not to ask for it. But in each case, she makes the ultimate decision.
Edwin Ramos, 22, is charged with murdering Tony Bologna and his sons Michael and Matthew in June of last year. Police say he pulled alongside Bologna’s car in the Excelsior District and fired repeatedly, killing three of the occupants. Another of Bologna’s sons was in the car but survived the shooting.
Friday in court, prosecutor Harry Dorfman made this surprise announcement.
The District Attorney has decided to seek the special circumstances penalty of life without parole; we will not seek the death penalty in this case,” he said.
Since Ramos was charged with multiple murders and two other special circumstance offenses, Harris could have asked for the death penalty. But Harris is an opponent of capital punishment and she told reporters her decision fits the crime.
*******************************************
Now….IF…..and notice that’s a big IF…..Ms. harris has ever said no cases brought before her met the criteria for asking for the death penalty she is, uh, incorrect.
This one meets the criteria.
SF, can you tell us when she said no cases brought before her met the criteria?
So then I go to the old standby Wikipedia, and here is a paragraph from it.
Harris believes that life without possibility of parole is a more efficient, and cost effective, punishment.[22] According to the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, the death penalty conservatively costs $137 million per year.[23] If the system were changed to life without possibility of parole, the annual costs would be approximately $12 million per year.[23] Harris noted that the resulting surplus could put 1,000 more police officers into service in San Francisco alone.
****************************************************
So, this scores some points in SF’s favor. He has it right that she is personally opposed to the death penalty.
The Ramos murder obviously met the criteria for the death penalty. If SF can SHOW US where/when she said no cases brought before her met the criteria, game over.
The people in CA. have voted to have the death penalty. Period. If she refuses to ask for it regardless of the circumstances, she is going against the will of the CA voters.
Sure Fire, why don’t you expect the truth from far leftists? Do you really think that the further left someone is politically, the less honest they are? Do you believe that someone being liberal makes them less moral?
I don’t expect the truth from the far right either Rob, I’m talking about the kook fringe of either party. Are liberals less moral than conservatives? I see more of the truth and conduct I believe to be right coming from the right then the left, that’s my best answer.
Who are some famous politicians or reporters, pundits, etc. today that you would consider to be on the “kook fringe” of the right wing, SF?
What traits of the left wing do you believer are immoral?
After reading up further on Ms. Harris, she in fact did make a campaign promise not to seek the death penalty in any case on the basis that it was her opinion that the death penalty was “immoral”.
That’s not up to her to decide. If the voters of CA. want the death penalty, it’s her job to represent their wishes in applying the law. Regardless of whether she likes it or not. The voters spoke.
Besides, when we start letting our “morals” dictate what we do as an elected official, that’s a very slippery slope. Besides being wrong.
Let me put it this way. She would be excluded from being on a jury if it was a death penalty case because she has said she would never seek the death penalty.
But she can be AG?
Her prosecutors would be excluding people who have the same “morals” she does from juries in death penalty cases. How ironic is that?
Whether I like it or not, or Ms. Harris likes it or not, the voters in CA have spoken and said they want the death penalty. The AG position (Top Cop) is not a place for a person to enforce their personal morals on the electorate. it’s their job to enforce the law.
Do we really want law enforcement officials enforcing the law based on their morals? Or do we want them enforcing the law…..based ON the law.
Chalk one up for SF.
It’s real easy for some of us in here to see my point if I put it like this.
If Mike Huckabee (a former preacher) gets elected POTUS in 2012, do you want him putting his morals above the law?
Didn’t think so. Me either.
Let’s be consistent here. If we realize it’s wrong for those who hold different morals than ours to place theirs above the law, we must realize it’s wrong for us to do it also.
Or you could just look at it from a pragmatic point of view.
Hey, is somebody we like and agree with always going to be in charge? Not likely.
Slippery slope. With lots of cactus on the way down.
Californians don’t want the death penalty. The campaign against the death penalty is just weak. Not enough financial support. Just like prop 19. Did you see one commercial supporting prop 19, and breaking down the myths about marijuana, proving how much safer it is than alcohol and pain killers that are already legal and commonly used by Americans? Breaking down where the tax dollars from its use could be put? Demonstrating how it could turn the state’s deficit to a surplus? I didn’t either. People are typically going to vote authority first if there isn’t a strong, progressive argument made in the campaign. To say people support this or that based on election results is disingenuous.
Gay marriage, too. I didn’t see any ads against gay marriage linking the money trail behind the anti gay marriage movement to powerful religious fanatics in Utah, some of them supporters of polygamy. Part of the anti gay marriage campaign was to portray the pro gay marriage campaign as nutty. So pointing out the extremism of the anti gay marriage movement would have made it a fair fight. Didn’t happen. The ads basically made it moral values vs. anything goes, with guys married to 10 women each funding the moral values side. LOL. People are uninformed. That’s all there is to it.
Some of those polygamists behind prop 8 are married to underage girls on the sly, too. Straight pedos.
People’s religious views are becoming less and less important to the national electorate. That’s why Romney ( a Mormon) is beating Obama in a poll.
It’s still within the margin of error (plus or minus 3) and l4ess than Huckabee’s.
Romney won’t win in the Deep South. A lot of Christian evangelicals have contempt for Mormons and don’t trust them. I grew up in Alabama, Florida, Georgia and Tennessee and can tell you this from first hand experience.
Similarly, a lot of Christians (myself included) believe in evolution. In the primaries Huckabee could very well find himself winning states in the South and Midwest, but getting hammered on the coast.
The vast majority of people (moderates) in this country aren’t afraid of having a “born again” as the President, just as they are not afraid of having a Mormon in the big seat.
A false equivalency if there ever was one: Huckabee was a Baptist pastor; Obama was never a minster. It’s not just beliefs; it’s degrees of belief.
As I said, two years is a lifetime in the political cycle.
I do find the irony in the right’s confusion as to whether they should label Obama a Christian to make the case that he’s a Christian so liberals should support Christian things, or label him a Muslim to scare people out of supporting him. Hope they finally come down with a decision on this. Actually, I don’t, to be honest. It would be great to see their strategists split over this in the ’12 election season.
Come on now Rob. CA voters voted for the death penalty. Period. End of story.
To say that they “don’t really want it” and that “the campaign against it was just weak” could be applied to absolutely any propositon or politician who ever ran for office.
Think about it. We’re the people uninformed about JB vs. MW?
Do we really want MW, but her campaign was just weak?
Did we really want John McCain, but the campaign against Barack Obama was weak?
Were the voters smart about Obama but stupid about prop 8?
Same voters.
If politicians start deciding that they aren’t going to enforce the laws that voters approve of via the ballot box, because they know what’s really best for the electorate, then the electorate’s voice is silenced.
There’s a word for that. It’s not democracy.
In a few years, probably the next election, when CA voters approve the legalization of pot, what if the CA A/G believes “it’s morally wrong” for people to smoke weed so she/he continues to arrest people and lock em up for it?
You ok with that? I’m not.
The South has changed Randy, if you think they wouldn’t support Romney over Obama next election I think you’re wrong.
Rob writes more of what he wishes were true, rather than the facts, but claims their facts without supporting his position. That’s why you lose Rob.
As for Prop 8, I supported it for one reason. The word “marrige”, shouldn’t be used to describe the union of two gays. They deserve, a couple joined in a “state recognized gay union”, every right a couple joined in a marriage do. Just don’t tell me that the traditional meaning of the word marrige has to change to accomplish that because it doesn’t.
A word doesn’t establish a right for an individual or group, the action that accompanies the word does. In my opinion Prop 8 would have been defeated if gays would have simply used a different word to describe their ceremony. I’m not willing to bend on this, simple as that.
The word “marriage” has certain legal entitlements, SF, is why gays insist on that level of equality; if it were just a religious issue it would be different. But when it comes to insurance, health and other benefits; who gets the Social Secutity and so on, tax benefits, who gets to make medical decisions etc., marriage has a certain legal definition that “live-in partner” does not.
Personally I wish that were NOT the case – especially re: health insurance, but Republicans crushed that prospect as some sort of socialist Obama plot to take away healthcare from those who are happy with what they’ve got (usually those who work for government or big co’s). We SHOULD get healthcare as a human right or at least with an option for a reasonable fee, as they do in Europe. (I am well aware of the waste and inefficiency in government-run health plans and de facto reationing, and frankly used to oppose single-payer for that reason. I think Democrats were partly to blame for the failure to reach consensus by denying these flaws, and dismissing things like de facto rationing (based on age mainly) as voodoo nonsense cooked up by rightwing yahoos. They grossly exaggerated the problems, yes, but they exist.
I still don’t want it as the ONLY option, but these issues can be addressed by combining what we in the U.S. know about quality assurance/ risk management/accred. agency standards etc. — taking it away from the health insurance co’s which are the opposite of humanitarian — within the context of a social philosophy that getting treated when you’re sick, getting preventive healthcare, is a human right.
If we took getting healthcare and other economic equality issues like tax rates OUT of the realm of “marriage only” and made them applicable fairly to individuals and those who had “legal unions,” I could agree with you. I’d say leave things which belong to Pilate, to Pilate, and those wich belong to God, to God – but that’s not how we do things in America. We should. For now, gay couples are denied vital economic and social equality.
Legal enititlements can be granted to gays joined in the type union I was describing without use of the word marrige. It just has to be written into the law that grants them the right and what you’re stating you want to have done could still be done.
“In my opinion Prop 8 would have been defeated if gays would have simply used a different word to describe their ceremony. I’m not willing to bend on this, simple as that.”
Sure Fire, I’m sure the Civil Rights act would have been passed sooner if blacks were just willing to call themselves something other than Americans. Like for instance, “those people”, or “animals”, something of that nature. They wanted to be called Americans, but before 1964 a lot of people just felt this country wasn’t built that way. Same logic.
“The South has changed Randy,”
That’s what I tried to tell ATQ. He says no. Says people in the south are a lot different than people on the coasts. So, if ATQ’s right, Romney’s going to have a tough time below the Mason Dixon.
“The South has changed Randy,”
That’s what I tried to tell ATQ. He says no.
Look at the map. Are you now saying the south isn’t full of a bunch of uneducated religious right-wingers with guns? Are you saying that there is no longer a reason for us to be afraid of the Tea Partiers?
IS the Tea Party dangerous?
Where do Tea Partiers come from? Is it the people from CA/OR/WA/NY/MA that make the Tea Party dangerous?
Or is it the people from mid-America and the south?
The Tea Party is either dangerous, or it isn’t. They’re demographic either comes from a few centralized regions, or it’s a nationwide movement.
We either need to be afraid of them, or we don’t.
When you cherry pick certain parts of dialogue to try and bolster your point, you weaken most other segments of your debate.
As of last Wednesday, the coasts are blue and mid-America and the south is red.
Period. That fact can’t be denied.
How did all those states go red if those area’s aren’t more conservative than the coasts?
How did the coasts stay blue if they aren’t more liberal than the states that went red?
The facts speak for themselves.
What started this esoteric debate was when I said that Joe Manchin and Barbara Boxer are as different as night and day.
IMHO, I believe I’ve made that case Lee.
My point is that a lot of Democrats in mid-America and the south aren’t as liberal, or, “don’t think” like Democrats on the coasts. If they did, a wave of red wouldn’t have taken place Tuesday.
My point was PROVEN Tuesday. I’m just echoing what the evidence tells us.
ATQ, you need to take this up with Sure Fire. He said the south has changed, that Romney could win the south, despite being a Mormon. You’re saying it’s the same ol dixie. This is between you and him. I’m a spectator. You two discuss it, because the two of you obviously disagree.
Ha ha. The split within the right is already starting, and it’s made it to Witness LA. Just kidding, guys.
lol. All I’m saying is that Democrats in mid-America and the south are more conservative than the coasts. And most That’s what I’m saying.
They are more moderate. The same things political philosophies that get Democrats elected in CA/OR/WA/NY don’t sell well in mid-America and the south.
That’s ALL I said before, and that’s ALL I’m saying now.
Thst’s why a DEMOCRAT ran a campaign commercial where he was dressed in hunting clothes and shot a hole thru the Cap N Trade Bill.
There’s a reason that the term “conservative Democrat” exists Rob.
It’s not because of the Democrats along the coasts. It’s really plain and simple. And it’s also really obvious.
From Wiki.
Blue Dog Coalition
The Democratic Blue Dog Coalition is a group of United States Congressional Representatives from the Democratic Party identifying themselves as moderate-to-conservative Democrats committed to financial and national security and favoring compromise and bipartisanship over ideology and party discipline
******************************************
Special attn. to the terminology “moderate-to-conservative Democrats”.
The coasts aren’t a haven for these Blue Dog Democrats. Just as I stated before. Case closed.
ATQ, my point has always been, I don’t think Democrats in middle America are as different from Democrats on the coasts as you think they are. You also said that everything east of I-5 is different than everything west of it, in California? Again, I think that’s a bit short sighted, as well. Are you even factoring in the growing Latino populations in the central valley? Merced? Turlock? Los Gatos? I think you’re just fixated on those upper class snobby liberals along the coast line. The Bush era certainly polarized this nation more so than in any time in recent history, but demographics are changing and a lot is different now than even as recent as 2004. Obama only won because he won some of those southern states like North Carolina and Virginia. There’s a lot of medium sized cities in those states with a lot more liberals, now. It’s not as cut and dry as it used to be. And frankly, I don’t think it’s been since the ’60s. I think Rove politics just brought out that demon again in the Bush era, and, regardless of Rove’s clever distancing from the tea party in public, I think they’re part of his overall political idea, too.
That’s why we’re missing Howard Dean, ATQ. He knew there wre liberals in these so called red states. That’s why he introduced the 50 State Plan. When he retired, I asked a lot of liberals on various blogs if they thought his absence would hurt us in the future, if we would ditch the 50 state plan and go back to the disastrous old “flyover” strategy. They insisted I was overreacting. I wish I wasn’t.
wish I was, rather…. LOL
The South has changed Randy, if you think they wouldn’t support Romney over Obama next election I think you’re wrong.
That’s not what I said; at least not what I meant. Romney won’t win primaries in the South. Huckabee won’t win primaries on the coasts, Northeast and the industrial Midwest.
I still have much of my family in Alabama and Tennessee and visit them regularly. Some of the large metro areas in the South are somewhat different, but here’s the vote by county in 2008 in Georgia. Notwithstanding the fact that Obama crushed McCain in Fulton County, the state’s largest, McCain took the state.
I know plenty of Southern Baptists who have little tolerance for Roman Catholics; I have an elderly aunt who’s convinced I’m condemned to an eternity of hellfire and brimstone for being Roman Catholic. While I realize that this is anecdotal, I really can’t see them being more tolerant towards Mormons.
If you look and see where Huckabee won primaries in 2008, the only areas outside of the Deep South where Huckabee won were Kansas and the Iowa caucuses. Romney only won primaries in some of the mountain states, the uppermost Midwest (except Wisconsin), Maine and Massachusetts.
The one issue that I raised that hasn’t been addressed is the issue for Romney of attempting to run against a health plan that is largely similar to the one he signed into law as governor of Massachusetts. I could see Huckabee using this as a cudgel against Romney in the primaries.
Rob,
This is true today, and it was true 30 years ago. I personally think it will be true 30 years from now, but we’ll have to see about that.
Here’s a reality that cost us BIG TIME last Tuesday.
Politically speaking, America is an ever so slightly right of center country. BUT….when politicians govern too far from the right…. the moderates will drag that back to damn near the middle. See 2006.
When politicians govern to far from the left, the moderates will drag them back to the right. See 2010.
About 25% of the people in this country are hard left. About 25% are hard right. The other 50% are near the middle.
THEY make ALL the difference, on a nationally speaking basis.
The President’s inexperience caused to him to listen to Pelosi and Reed, who persuaded him that his being elected meant he had a VERY liberal mandate, and he should go forward with very liberal policies.
The three of them got a reality check Tuesday.
There are strongholds for both sides in certain parts of the country. Those cancel each other out.
Both parties will get dragged back to the middle if they try to get too far to either side. They may get dragged back kicking and screaming, lol, but they WILL get dragged back.
Rob, as for CA…. do a little homework and see how many counties east of I-5 are red, and check their past voting histories. The vastly growing hispanic population IS making an impact, but it hasn’t caused most of the areas east of I-5 to go blue yet.
There are little pockets of blue here and there, but overall, east of the I-5 is red.
Otherwise, their wouldn’t have been ANY Rep. within 20% of any of our Democratic candidates.
Randy,
What Romney has said in the past is that he thinks if a state wants to have a state based “healthcare plan”, and if the sate can afford it, they should be afforded the oppurtunity to try it.
He has said that he doesn’t think it’s wise for it to be implemented on a natioonal level. That’s what he says.
So, basically his position on healthcare is basically the same as gambling,prostitution, gun control, etc.
What NOBODY ever addresses is this. MOST people that can’t afford private insurance already have state based insurance.
It’s called Medicaid and Medicare.
Some places call it other things. When I lived in AR it was called “AR-Kids” for those under 18.
I can tell you this without a shadow of a doubt.
Most states have laws that prohibit an emergency room from turning a person with a true emergency away, REGARDLESS of their ability to pay. Almost all the states also have laws that mandate that pregnant women can’t be turned away from an emergency room. REGARDLESS of the ability to pay.
The scenarios of people “dying outside of hospital emergency rooms because they don’t have insurance” is hyperbole. And most people know it. Those in favor of Universal Healthcare aren’t doing their cause any good by using these analogies, because it pisses a lot of people off who know it isn’t true. Piss people off, and they usually won’t buy what you’re trying to sell them, no matter how good the product is.
You can find anecdotal stories to the contrary, but they are the exception that proves the rule.
# Answering The Question Says:
November 7th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Politically speaking, America is an ever so slightly right of center country.
…………
No it’s not. Republicans just campaign better. In order for Democrats to win they have to be the chosen one like Barack. They have to glow like they’re God. All of that shit Republicans didn’t like about Obama, mocking his God like stature? He had to do that Only way he could win. Just like a brother has to dress nice to make sure people don’t think he’s ghetto. All a Republican has to do is promise to throw more people in jail.
AMERICANS ARE TOLD WHAT TO BELIEVE, PERIOD.
From Gallup
August 2nd 2010
In general, Americans are much more likely to identify politically as conservative than as liberal, and this has been the case for many years. As a result, the 10 most conservative states have no fewer than 46% of their residents identifying as conservative. In contrast, the 10 most liberal states have a much lower threshold of 25% liberal identifiers in their states.
On average, conservatives outnumber liberals by about 20 percentage points across all states. Only in the District of Columbia and Rhode Island did liberals outnumber conservatives during the first half of 2010.
*********************************************
Per their map.
More liberal than the national average:
CA., OR., WA., CO., NY., NJ., MA., VT., CT., RI., DE., DC.,
HI.
More conservative than the national average:
ID., WY., UT., ND., SD., NE., Ok., AR., LA., MS., TN., AL., SC.
13 more liberal and 13 more conservative. The other 24 are in the middle. THAT’S why MODERATES determine who gets elected.
Our current Democratic admin. (Obama, Reid, Pelosi) failed to acknowledge this and they got dragged (kicking and screaming) back to the middle last Tuesday.
P.S.
CA. didn’t even poll in the top 10 of the most liberal states….you know why? EAST of I-5.
No it’s not.
lol.
With all due respect, I’ll take Gallup’s, Real Clear Politics, and all the other major polls word for it over wherever you’re getting your info. from.
Didn’t know how I missed this but you’re a fucking tard Rob, shutting the fuck up would make better sense than posting with your head buried straight up your ass. What the fuck planet do you live on? You’re a complete idiot, nothing fucking funny about your take, nothing smart about it and it shows you have big mental issues on board to stretch things to this point. You must have plenty of lumps on that empty head of yours from when you were dropped on it daily as a kid.
Are you related to Reg?
36.Lee Plenty Says:
November 6th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
“In my opinion Prop 8 would have been defeated if gays would have simply used a different word to describe their ceremony. I’m not willing to bend on this, simple as that.”
Sure Fire, I’m sure the Civil Rights act would have been passed sooner if blacks were just willing to call themselves something other than Americans. Like for instance, “those people”, or “animals”, something of that nature. They wanted to be called Americans, but before 1964 a lot of people just felt this country wasn’t built that way. Same logic.
Delete away if the mood strikes you Celeste but I hope dumb ass sees it first.