Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not entirely true. Raimondo won Barrington, East Providence, Little Compton, Tiverton, Cumberland, Woonsocket, Central Falls, Pawtucket, Tiverton, Portsmouth, Middletown, Jamestown, South Kingstown, Westerly, Block Island, East Greenwich. She didn't win the most rural areas on the west of the state, but she won a lot of the suburbs and east bay rural areas.
According to RIGOV In 2010, 13 percent of voters used the straight-ticket option -- down sharply from more than 20 percent in 2008 and 2006.
In Providence alone: 10,000 master levers filled in for this election. The "straight ticket" is alive and well and most certainly could have made a difference. This state has been "straight democratic" for 80 years. If it means so little, why has it been there for so long?
Healy stated that he didn't think his running affected the outcome and concluded any surmise on that as "specious". Really? Raimondo represents more of the same liberal, progressive agenda that is going on in this state and I think quite a few are disgusted with that.
If Fung represented even the slightest part of what Healy represented, quite a few of Healy's votes would have gone to him. At least 22% of the voters are fed up with how this state is run. Not to think he did not affect the outcome for Fung is preposterous in my mind.
Only one true way to find out: have a run off election such as other states do.
I don't think the master lever means anything either.
Are we to believe that scratch party voters are all of a sudden
going to stop voting for their party just because they have to fill individual lines ?
Seems kind of preposterous.
Have we not seen "preposterous" in this state election after election? Personally, I've had my fill of the "preposterous" in RI politics and anything that lends a hand to diminish that no matter how small or large , I'm all for and that includes getting rid of the "master lever".
How can Raimondo be liberal and progressive as well as being "in bed with wall street" as so many say?
Several different suits she'll wear as needed. She had her beginnings in finance (her affiliation with Wall Street) and then decided to get into politics. She needed votes, so she spread herself around and said things that are leftist such as in state tuition for illegals and giving illegals driver's licenses. She is in bed with the AFL-CIO by leaving their colas alone because she needed union support from somewhere as we are a unionized state. She knows we are a "left" state so why not pander to that to get elected.
She supports a woman's right to third semester abortions to get the women vote, So quite cunningly, she made "statements" to garner the women, cultural and union votes. (although that Planned Parenthood talk almost did her in this catholic environment)
Quite the chameleon I'd say. Let's see where she ends up as she has the political speak down pat.
Several different suits she'll wear as needed. She had her beginnings in finance (her affiliation with Wall Street) and then decided to get into politics. She needed votes, so she spread herself around and said things that are leftist such as in state tuition for illegals and giving illegals driver's licenses. She is in bed with the AFL-CIO by leaving their colas alone because she needed union support from somewhere as we are a unionized state. She knows we are a "left" state so why not pander to that to get elected.
She supports a woman's right to third semester abortions to get the women vote, So quite cunningly, she made "statements" to garner the women, cultural and union votes. (although that Planned Parenthood talk almost did her in this catholic environment)
Quite the chameleon I'd say. Let's see where she ends up as she has the political speak down pat.
She is in bed with the AFL-CIO by leaving their colas alone
Please explain how she could have affected colas from any group other than retired and tenured state employees.
There are 56 MERS retirement plans obtaining colas. There are no contributions (ARCS) by the state to MERS funding as it 100% funded by employees however the state is the overseer to this group. Depending on who you talk to, this relegates to a "separate contract" and thus not affected by state legislation which I assume is where you are coming from. Paying 9% into a MERS plan gains one a 3% cola. ERSRI members payed 9.5% with 40% ARC from the state but with no cola. If the ERSRI fund could be considered "fair game" for a money source and did not have total autonomy from state pilfering, what made MERS different? MERS is alleged to be over 73% funded as opposed to 40% for ERSRI. Both systems gain return from Treasurer investments. If that is the case, why is not MERS money as a result of state investment, also not subject to mandated cola abatement?
I cannot believe and would consider myself naive to think this was purely about FUNG being a right to work supporter and Raimondo was not. She was the treasurer who first met with George Nee two years ago when this pension "crisis"first came out. At that time, I spoke with Nee and asked why not have ERSRI members contribute up to 11% to begin to build up the funding. He stated to me "It wouldn't matter because some consider the pension fund as "general fund" as a result of state contribution" I then asked why are judges and state police who payed "nothing" into the fund not the one's targeted for no colas. "Too small a sampling" he stated.
In my mind, the investments made by the state in behalf of MERS and the resultant fund growth, should then also be considered part of the "general fund".
It simply seems to me that for the sake of "convenience" MERS seems better protected with the right semantics. I just think there is more to this than being stated.
As I said, we'll see where this all pans out and who goes where. Too early to tell but it's a real life chess game in my mind. Perhaps I'll eat crow but I could also be dead on.
Not entirely true. Raimondo won Barrington, East Providence, Little Compton, Tiverton, Cumberland, Woonsocket, Central Falls, Pawtucket, Tiverton, Portsmouth, Middletown, Jamestown, South Kingstown, Westerly, Block Island, East Greenwich. She didn't win the most rural areas on the west of the state, but she won a lot of the suburbs and east bay rural areas.
It was a close race, no doubt about it.
don't forget, Healey took two towns, Bristol and Warren, and some of the towns Raimondo
took, she did by less than 100 votes. Healey won Warren and Bristol.
The only place she had a convincing margin of victory margin was in the highly populated
urban areas. The totals of these areas garnished her the margin of victory, but still only
40% of voters. The so-called "Moderate" party is a sidekick of the Democratic Party, it's
their shabbos goy and I was surprised how many people were naive enough to vote
for Bob Healey.
The phenomenon of Democratic/Socialist party winning urban areas and the Republicans
winning vastly in non-urban areas is nationwide. Rhode Island's small size is a primary
reason why it turns up Democrat.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
