Random postings below, not my commentary. -DR
This is a Prop 50 ballot, as you can see if I don't flip my ballot backwards my no vote will show. This can't be explained as a simple typo error like the pamphlet. This is 100% intentional, the no votes that are not flip will go in the trash can. This needs to be seen by the courts, someone needs to be held accountable.
I don't know if it's intentional, but yeah, that's awful.
Right now it's leading 54-36 in polls, but sometimes the voters surprise people regarding California propositions. The voting tends to skew a lot more conservative on propositions than the state's party registration, which shows that many Californians actually agree more with Republicans but don't realize it, due to vilification of the GOP out here.
Democrats have instead counted on misleading descriptions of the propositions in order to get them to pass. That problem is getting worse and worse. I haven't read Prop 50's description yet (though obv know what it's about).
If they fall for it, good...
Registered voters in California will soon have a choice on whether the state will be redistricted with the intention of getting democrats elected to the House. It's blatant gerrymandering, and prominent democrats like TheOneWhichNameShouldn'tbeMentioned and AOC are being very upfront with what it is - gerrymandering. They're not even sugarcoating it.
Whether you stand on the right or in the middle, the vote seems obvious to me. NO - do not gerrymander in response to gerrymandering in another state. That's short-sighted at best.
When you fight fire with fire, you soon have a conflagration.
As well, if the ends justify the means, then the means will be justifiable in the end.
Often times what happens in California has a ripple effect and influences the whole nation.
I don't agree with gerrymandering in Texas, but put out a fire at the source. This should be dealt with some other way. LEGALLY.
Ship it crucial
guys guysssssssssssssssssssss when you fight fire with fire you soon have a conflagration
Welcome back, Neverheeb. And I agree.Originally Posted by Neverheeb
The funny thing about this gerrymandering panic is that we've already had PLENTY of gerrymandering in this country -- which has benefited both parties.
Democrats are acting like the most recent gerrymandering in Texas is a crisis -- as if it's something which has never happened before.
California further gerrymandering its already gerrymandered districts simply hurts the state. It robs swing districts of the ability to elect a congressman whom they feel can best represent them, and instead puts the finger on the scales to where one party is almost guaranteed to win.
For example, David Valadao would be shut out of being reelected in the San Joaquin valley.
He's an anomaly in today's politics -- a politician who legitimately reaches out to both sides of the aisle, and a Congressman who makes a deep connection to the local community.
California's 21st district went to Biden by 11 points, and Hillary by 16 points. It is 74% Hispanic. Despite this, he won in 2020.
Due to 2022 redistricting, he ended up in the 22nd district in 2022 and 2024, and won both elections. That district is 40% white, and more red than the 21st. Due to his popularity, and his now-better district, he is assumed to stay in Congress for a long time.
This irritates Democrats, even though Valadao has often worked with them, including voting to impeach Trump in the 2010s. They want him gone, and the new prop 50 plan would render his district unwinnable, despite his popularity and locals-focused governing.
Basically Newsom is saying "fuck you" to all swing districts, and saying, "We will put Democrats in your district, whether you like it or not."
This is all just a stunt so Newsom can claim in 2028 that he "stood up to Trump", and can tout the "success" of prop 50 as a reason to vote for him in the Democratic Presidential primary of 2028.
Everyone should reject self-serving conman Newsom, and vote NO on 50.
Gonna go drop my ballot off. It says the healthcare money is earmarked for stuff I agree with, so a small tax seems like a good idea. I voted for Rishi Kumar for County Assessor. Seems legit.
Ship it crucial
Trying folding the flaps in a different order. I'm pretty sure you can fold it in such a way that there isn't any indication of what you voted for...
Ship it crucial
Gonna go drop my ballot off. It says the healthcare money is earmarked for stuff I agree with, so a small tax seems like a good idea. I voted for Rishi Kumar for County Assessor. Seems legit.
Nice pic, but you got fooled by the "small tax is earmarked for stuff which sounds like a good idea" trick.
Here's a little secret about Cailfornia propositions approving tax increases: They rarely turn out like you're promised they will.
"Temporary" tax increases become permanent.
Funds raised by the tax get diverted away from where they claimed the money would go.
The "one time" increase ask repeats again in another election, supposedly due to unforeseen circumstances.
I snap vote NO on any tax increase. The California state budget is huge. They can spend more efficiently. I'm not piling more money into their coffers so they can keep wasting.
This is going to win.
Prop 50 YES donations ended up crushing the NO side, especially after a GOP figure stupidly told donors that 50 was likely to win, so everyone on that side closed their wallets.
The GOP has quietly conceded this one, and have stopped talking about it for the most part.
I felt that the NO on 50 ads were not good. They were in the "two wrongs don't make a right" vein, and that logic rarely convinces people. Reminds me of when I was in elementary school, and some kid punched me, I punched him back, and we both got dragged into the principal's office. I told the principal that the kid hit me first. He said back, "Two wrongs don't make a right." Sounded stupid then as a kid, and sounds stupid now.
The message should have highlighted how certain districts are going to lose their longtime representatives, and will be replaced by those loyal to the Democratic Party rather than the local area. That would have resonated with people. The "two wrongs" message didn't.
Well this dem is voting no because I don't believe in disenfranchising minorities. That's why I voted for an independent commission 20 years ago.
I already got fucked in my district in the 2010s when they redistricted, and Nancy Pelosi brought in a carpetbagger from out of the area to "represent" us. The local Republican Congressman lost, thanks to the gerrymandering, and in his place was a Democratic woman who gave zero shits about the district, and voted exactly as Pelosi told her.
Now California wants to do this to a further extreme, to get back at Trump?
Fuck no.
This is going to win.
Prop 50 YES donations ended up crushing the NO side, especially after a GOP figure stupidly told donors that 50 was likely to win, so everyone on that side closed their wallets.
The GOP has quietly conceded this one, and have stopped talking about it for the most part.
I felt that the NO on 50 ads were not good. They were in the "two wrongs don't make a right" vein, and that logic rarely convinces people. Reminds me of when I was in elementary school, and some kid punched me, I punched him back, and we both got dragged into the principal's office. I told the principal that the kid hit me first. He said back, "Two wrongs don't make a right." Sounded stupid then as a kid, and sounds stupid now.
The message should have highlighted how certain districts are going to lose their longtime representatives, and will be replaced by those loyal to the Democratic Party rather than the local area. That would have resonated with people. The "two wrongs" message didn't.
The polls indicated it was a guaranteed loss for the GOP long ago. It has nothing to do with the message. It's the blind partisanship of California. You even say so in your reference to Pelosi in a post after the quoted one above. Hindsight is 50/50, what's the better argument against PROP 50?
Ship it crucial
The only fights you ever win are the fights you avoid.
Ship it crucial
The polls indicated it was a guaranteed loss for the GOP long ago. It has nothing to do with the message. It's the blind partisanship of California. You even say so in your reference to Pelosi in a post after the quoted one above. Hindsight is 50/50, what's the better argument against PROP 50?
Yes, Prop 50 was ahead in the polls the entire way, and was the definite favorite to win.
However, the voting on propositions in California tends to veer right of the makeup of the electorate, provided there aren't factors such as mass funding differences on the YES/NO sides, and provided the prop is described accurately in the voter information.
For example, crime-and-punishment proposition voting tends to favor the GOP, even though California is a dark blue state. Tax proposition voting also tends to favor the GOP. As I stated before, I believe this is because a lot of voters think they're Democrats, but in reality hold some basic conservative positions and don't realize it. There are also probably some moderate Dem voters who simply break from their own party on matters like crime and taxes (at which point I have to ask... why be a Democrat at all?)
Anyway, sometimes these "red surprise" victories don't show up well in pre-election polling. For whatever reason, some of these voters don't like to tell the truth about how their voting, perhaps out of guilt. The biggest example of this was the infamous Prop 8 in 2008, which made gay marriage illegal in the state. It was apparently destined for a huge loss, but then easily won. This was attributed to a two factors. Some quietly supported it but wouldn't admit it over the phone. Also, there was a high black turnout in that election, due to Barack Obama running, and a dirty secret about the black community is that they don't like gay people (see Pete Buttigieg's 0% black support in the 2020 primary).
Anyway, prop 8 managed something like a 30 point swing in actual results versus pre-election polling predictions.
I had hoped that maybe Prop 50 would do something similar, though it's not nearly as polarizing an issue as gay marriage was in 2008 (which now feels like 100 years ago).
However, now I'm conceding it because there was a tremendous funding gap which has just gotten larger, and the NO side has put out poor messaging anyway, as I already stated.
Funding is huge when it comes to propositions in CA. It's not like political candidates, who can win despite far less funding, due to voter enthusiasm on social media (Trump is a good example). Props will usually get clobbered if they don't have the funding to run enough ads to convince voters.
Where are you on the California Wealth tax?
California is considering a proposed one-time 5% wealth tax on billionaires to help fund healthcare and education, which would require over 870,000 signatures to be placed on the November 2026 ballot.
This measure aims to address significant federal funding cuts and generate substantial revenue for the state.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
