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.
Democrats have total control in CA, and have for some time. They could have changed the process if it's unfair. But somehow they opted to keep an unfair process in place.
Yes, I agree. Regardless of party, the California recall process needs to be revised, not for the sake of one party over another, but for the sake of fairness and proper representation (i.e. democracy).
Bill Clinton never won a 50%+ 1 vote for the presidency. In a runoff against Bush without Perot, Clinton would have lost.
Comparing presidential elections to any other is like comparing apples to oranges. It's not the popular vote that wins the presidency; it's the electoral college. It has repeated itself a few times in U.S. presidential elections, where a candidate loses the popular vote but wins the election. The topic here is about the gubernatorial recall in California, where the winner out of a slate of 40 candidates takes all (if the recall is 50%+1) when that "win" is never going to be close to 50%+1.
Comparing presidential elections to any other is like comparing apples to oranges. It's not the popular vote that wins the presidency; it's the electoral college. It has repeated itself a few times in U.S. presidential elections, where a candidate loses the popular vote but wins the election. The topic here is about the gubernatorial recall in California, where the winner out of a slate of 40 candidates takes all (if the recall is 50%+1) when that "win" is never going to be close to 50%+1.
It has happened only a small handful of times that a candidate won the electoral college but not the popular vote. Jackson in 1824 won the popular vote (in a 4 way race) but lost the election. Also Hayes in 1876, Harrison in 1888, W. Bush in 2000, and Trump in 2016.
The main reason Bush and Trump won were due to the red/blue rural/urban divide. The electoral college gives disproportionate weight to low population regions, as it was intended to do. The system was demanded by small states like Rhode Island, who feared being overwhelmed by the interests of the large pop. states like Virginia.
It’s disgusting what the media has done to Larry, they should be ashamed of themselves if they had any conscious at all. California needs him badly
At this point I'd just be happy with a centrist old school Democrat. I really don't care about the R or D part, but since the Dems have gone so bat crap crazy with the far lefty progressive crap, I long for the days of the moderate Dems.
The ones that cared about the worker, protecting national sovereignty, ie, the border, and keeping big business in check at times. Sheesh, there ain't no difference between the Dems and the Repubs in terms of cuddling up to big corporations such as big tech, big pharma and the like.
where is the post where someone claimed this was ok ?????
oh, it doesnt exist.
May not have said it, but didn’t criticize it either. By the lack of interest that a White woman wore a gorilla suit, which is a racist action and calling him boy, is showing that the left condones it. If Elders was a Democrat, you guys will be upset.
It’s disgusting what the media has done to Larry, they should be ashamed of themselves if they had any conscious at all. California needs him badly
Or, maybe Larry should be ashamed of himself. I mean, supporting reparations for the descendants of slave owners, and claiming that second-hand smoke isn't harmful, just to name a couple of odd positions the guy holds dear. There's plenty to pick from. Just sayin'
I said this little over a month ago - the pro recall was high only because there was no clear opponent to Newsom so voters were free to imagine this perfect candidate; and who wouldn't vote out Newsom for this perfect governor that exist in their heads?
After Larry Elder became the face of the opposition, I could feel the enthusiasm dies. First of all, he just appears amped up, pissed off, and nervous most of the time - he talks really fast, rarely smiles, and has this perpetual frown. I feel like saying to him, "Dude, what are you so pissed off about? Just relax and be cool, man." Compare him to the last Republican governor - Arnold was cool, confident, smiles, and approachable. Elder is the complete opposite. Ok, I know he is a serious guy but his vibe is coming off like Michael Douglas in Falling Down.
Second, he skipped not one, not two, but three debates. I'm like, what?! We are trying to get to know him but instead of using the podium to introduce himself to the state he went to some fundraiser instead. Ok, I get that he is some national radio guy but believe it or not, most of us don't know him. He is acting like he is this famous brand that needs no introduction when many of us are learning about him for the first time.
Third, he just comes of as this petty whiny guy, not as bad as Trump, but not far behind. Let's compare the egging incident shall we? When Arnold got egged and had yolk splattered all over his jacket you know what he did? He immediate took off his jacket and continued to shake hands, never stopped smiling, never broke eye contact with the constituents, and went on as if nothing happened. He never complained afterwards and when asked, he joked about it and said he likes eggs. That's how a leader acts. In contrast, Elder went on Fox and angrily voiced his complaint. I get it, no one likes getting egged; but dude, you don't have to talk non-stop about it. He had the airtime on a national news network and he spend more time talking about this than his policy, which leads me to....
Fourth, what the duck is his policy?????!!! What does he stand for???!!!!! I have not the slightest clue. He spends more time talking about slave owner reparation, getting egged, and other stuff than the real stuff - policy. What is he going to do? What is his plan? Why does he think his plan works better than Newsom? I bet you if you ask ten Californians, no more than two can give you an answer. The only policy I know is he wants to kill minimum wage. Ok, fine; but we need more. Killing minimum wage can't be your grand idea, there has to be more. Afterall, he has zero governing experience and he is trying to unseat a dude with vast experience and most voters do not hate that much. He has got to bring more to the table and I'm not seeing it.
There was no insurrection, and cops are not "attacking" black citizens any more than they are white citizens, and it's pretty rare in any event. It's all a lie.
And of us could easily do a quick search and find a list of incidents of cops having beaten or murdered black citizens in a way they were not doing to white citizens. Or are you trying to claim that all those victims - Eric Garner, Walter Scott, Tamir Rice, George Floyd - are figments of people's imaginations?
And, yes, "insurrection" is a fine word for a mob of rioters swarming all over the seat of government, vandalizing property, and hoping to kill people like the vice president. Or would you prefer something like "sedition"?
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.
