Armed Polite Society

Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: makattak on October 18, 2017, 03:53:26 PM

Title: I didn't think the loathsome Democrat Ralph Northam could lose...
Post by: makattak on October 18, 2017, 03:53:26 PM
...to the loathsome GOPe shill Ed Gillespie, but BOY are they pulling out all the stops to do so:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ralph-northam-campaign-defends-deleting-black-running-mate-from-campaign-literature/article/2637881

Maybe it will be a tempest in a teapot. But I'd have thought that about a lot of things lately, so I have absolutely no idea what the results of this will be.

I'm starting to think that the GOP was tired of being the stupid party and is making a move to switch to the "evil" party and the Dems are working hard to switch to the "stupid" party.

I'm going to guess they will both fail and we'll just end up with two stupid and evil parties.
Title: Re: I didn't think the loathsome Democrat Ralph Northam could lose...
Post by: K Frame on October 18, 2017, 08:52:07 PM
Latest polls show Gillespie up.

It's getting really interesting.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Title: Re: I didn't think the loathsome Democrat Ralph Northam could lose...
Post by: French G. on October 18, 2017, 09:22:21 PM
I never really give a rats ass about our gov race because term limits, a balanced budget requirement and a closely divided legislature have traditionally limited how much damage one moron can do. But for the left my poor state has become a grooming ground for poor excuses for humans that seek higher power. Tim Kaine, now Terry. I will reflexively vote lying Republicans the rest of my life just to keep the other liars off stage.
Title: Re: I didn't think the loathsome Democrat Ralph Northam could lose...
Post by: makattak on October 19, 2017, 09:20:42 AM
Latest polls show Gillespie up.

It's getting really interesting.

Or they have him 14 points behind.

Which just goes to show me the pollsters have no idea who the "likely voter" is.
Title: Re: I didn't think the loathsome Democrat Ralph Northam could lose...
Post by: K Frame on October 19, 2017, 10:32:40 AM
Judging by the e-mails I've been getting from the Northam campaign they're 30 points behind and falling...
Title: Re: I didn't think the loathsome Democrat Ralph Northam could lose...
Post by: K Frame on October 19, 2017, 10:35:51 AM
And BOOM!

Northam's e-mails just used the term "dog whistle" in describing Gillespie's messages.

Title: Re: I didn't think the loathsome Democrat Ralph Northam could lose...
Post by: makattak on October 19, 2017, 10:39:05 AM
And BOOM!

Northam's e-mails just used the term "dog whistle" in describing Gillespie's messages.

That's just awesome. Apparently the left how now overused "dog whistle" so much it's a complete joke as well.

(I say this because I almost fell out of my chair laughing at your post.)
Title: Re: I didn't think the loathsome Democrat Ralph Northam could lose...
Post by: Scout26 on October 19, 2017, 03:39:39 PM
So, who are the Racists again ??

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/reeks-of-subtle-racism-tensions-after-black-candidate-left-off-fliers-in-virginia/2017/10/18/de74c47a-b425-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?tid=hpModule_ba0d4c2a-86a2-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394&utm_term=.ac82d8d0eca5

And the polls show them even.  Which means the Gillespie will win by about 6 points, at least.
Title: Re: I didn't think the loathsome Democrat Ralph Northam could lose...
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 27, 2017, 09:26:54 AM
You Virginians could always vote for this guy.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/22830/absolute-nutball-running-va-after-governor-restore-daily-wire


Quote
Among Larson’s controversial views, which are detailed on his campaign website, is an argument that the possession and distribution of child pornography “should be legalized.”

Could give new meaning to "Virginia is for lovers."
Title: Re: I didn't think the loathsome Democrat Ralph Northam could lose...
Post by: Angel Eyes on October 27, 2017, 08:37:48 PM
You Virginians could always vote for this guy.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/22830/absolute-nutball-running-va-after-governor-restore-daily-wire

From the article:
Quote
Nathan Larson is the Libertarian candidate ...

 :facepalm:
Title: Re: I didn't think the loathsome Democrat Ralph Northam could lose...
Post by: 230RN on October 27, 2017, 08:52:06 PM
makattak, Dark Lord of the Cis, smartassed:

Quote
I'm starting to think that the GOP was tired of being the stupid party and is making a move to switch to the "evil" party and the Dems are working hard to switch to the "stupid" party.

I'm going to guess they will both fail and we'll just end up with two stupid and evil parties.

Quotable quotey of the week.

 :rofl:

What else can I say?

Having already voted, I note that ads and other promotions from candidates never seem to identify their parties any more... not even on the ballot itself.

I guess they're all ashamed of their parties.
Title: Re: I didn't think the loathsome Democrat Ralph Northam could lose...
Post by: K Frame on October 28, 2017, 11:05:59 AM
Ralphie (you'll put your political career out!) hit the panic trifecta with last night's OH GOD GIVE US MONEY NOW! e-mail...

I just about fell off my chair laughing...

" Michael -- We're worried.

    FIRST Gillespie's campaign started slamming Democrat Ralph Northam with divisive and deceitful ads meant as a dog whistle for his far-right base

    THEN the NRA joined the bandwagon with their own ads

    NOW the Koch brothers just piled on with another million-dollar ad campaign!

These malicious ad campaigns threaten to distort Ralph's record and sway voters -- and that's something we can't afford in a ONE-POINT RACE!"


AH MAH GERDS! DOG WHISTLES, NRA AND THE KOCH BROTHERS! EVIL! EVIL, I TELLS YE!




Who was the first to use this term dog whistle as a pejorative? I know it's been around for years, and about 99.9% of the time it's been Democrats using it to attempt to paint Republicans in the worst possible light.

Northam's campaign is whining like little bitches about Gillespie's negative ads, but they're certainly not pulling any punches.
Title: Re: I didn't think the loathsome Democrat Ralph Northam could lose...
Post by: Angel Eyes on October 28, 2017, 12:05:07 PM
Dog whistles, gun owners, and Koch, oh my!
Title: Re: I didn't think the loathsome Democrat Ralph Northam could lose...
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 28, 2017, 01:10:36 PM
Where would Democrat electioneering be without race-baiting?

To answer my own question, I think they might actually be in the winners' circle.
Title: Re: I didn't think the loathsome Democrat Ralph Northam could lose...
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 30, 2017, 12:22:47 PM
What?  ???

https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2017/10/30/wtf-just-when-you-thought-the-lefts-hits-on-ed-gillespie-couldnt-sink-lower-video/
Title: Re: I didn't think the loathsome Democrat Ralph Northam could lose...
Post by: 230RN on October 30, 2017, 03:40:09 PM
*expletive deleted*

All of them.

The urban voting bloc will win, just like in Colorado.

There are times I think the Electoral College concept ought to be applied to State elections.  This  might be another case (as happens here in Colorado and other places), where the population density of the cities can overwhelm the rural voting bloc.

Thus we have New York City "owning" Albany, Chicago "owning" Illinois, Sacramento "owning" California, Denver "owning"....

Terry

REF:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/How_To_Steal_An_Election.jpg)
Title: Re: I didn't think the loathsome Democrat Ralph Northam could lose...
Post by: Scout26 on October 30, 2017, 03:43:13 PM
There are times I think the Electoral College concept ought to be applied to State elections.  This  might be another case (as happens here in Colorado and other places), where the population density of the cities overwhelms the rural voting bloc.

Thus we have New York City "owning" Albany, Chicago "owning" Illinois, Sacramento "owning" California, Denver "owning"....

Terry

REF:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/How_To_Steal_An_Election.jpg)

A few years back we got Pat Quinn as Governor here in Illinois.  There are 102 Counties in the state.   He won three.  Hence, he was often referred to as "3 County Quinn"
Title: Re: I didn't think the loathsome Democrat Ralph Northam could lose...
Post by: makattak on October 30, 2017, 03:47:19 PM
There are times I think the Electoral College concept ought to be applied to State elections.  This  might be another case (as happens here in Colorado and other places), where the population density of the cities overwhelms the rural voting bloc.

Thus we have New York City "owning" Albany, Chicago "owning" Illinois, Sacramento "owning" California, Denver "owning"....

Terry

REF:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/How_To_Steal_An_Election.jpg)

What is missed in that is that to control the formation of the districts, you have to win control first. In the case of the Republicans, it was through districts generally drawn by Democrats.

Another item that is missed is that Democrats have willingly confined themselves to very high density "blue" areas. Hard to create a geographically based district that is "balanced" in urban areas.

"Gerrymandering" is a complaint the Democrats bring out to avoid facing the reality that they have a very narrow appeal:

(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi0.wp.com%2Fmetrocosm.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F11%2Felection-2016-county-map.png%3Fresize%3D600%252C386&hash=303e98ac86f46fd0abe52c8b23f6482411b5b79c)
Title: Re: I didn't think the loathsome Democrat Ralph Northam could lose...
Post by: Jamisjockey on October 30, 2017, 05:01:10 PM
What is missed in that is that to control the formation of the districts, you have to win control first. In the case of the Republicans, it was through districts generally drawn by Democrats.

Another item that is missed is that Democrats have willingly confined themselves to very high density "blue" areas. Hard to create a geographically based district that is "balanced" in urban areas.

"Gerrymandering" is a complaint the Democrats bring out to avoid facing the reality that they have a very narrow appeal:

(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi0.wp.com%2Fmetrocosm.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F11%2Felection-2016-county-map.png%3Fresize%3D600%252C386&hash=303e98ac86f46fd0abe52c8b23f6482411b5b79c)

I've seen gerrymandering used directly to try and unseat a democrat.  Matheson, the D congressman from Utah had a district that was mostly salt lake.  The legislature redistricted and added in a huge rural swath including several small towns that regularly voted over 90% (R) to his district.

Democrats and Republicans are guilty of this sin.  A pox on both their houses.
Title: Re: I didn't think the loathsome Democrat Ralph Northam could lose...
Post by: just Warren on October 30, 2017, 05:36:39 PM
Some tech guy out here in Cal wants to split the state up into three parts and all of them would have huge Dem majorities. Coincidence? Probably not.

I live in the north and would still be stuck with SF, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Sac, Marin, Sonoma, Mendicino, and Humboldt counties voting in my elections so essentially nothing would change for me. So I won't be supporting that.

The State of Jefferson movement OTOH only includes Humboldt and Mendicino, Nevada, and Lake counties that went for HRC.

Nevada County cannot be excised without it becoming non-contiguous but the other three certainly could.  Though Lake County by itself would not be a major problem.

So I'd rather do that.

Of course that leaves out many Central Valley non-blue counties who don't have the population to be considered for statehood and thus would be stuck with being dominated by blue counties forever.
Title: Re: I didn't think the loathsome Democrat Ralph Northam could lose...
Post by: 230RN on October 30, 2017, 06:56:29 PM
makattak observed,

Quote
What is missed in that is that to control the formation of the districts, you have to win control first.

Not necessarily.  Depends on how and where you pose the question.  Putting it in terms of "the enhancement of democracy," that is, one person, one vote, can sometimes change things.

Example:  My recollection is that the business of changing selection of State Senators by the State Legislators to direct elections by the populace has been regarded as dangerous.  After all, isn't a "democratic" selection of Senators by the entire population "better?"

But some "representative republic" devotees see this as an example of the danger of rule by a "50% +1" pure democracy.  It throws to the wolves the original theory of balancing the "democracy" of the House of Representatives against the two-per-State Senate.

This is analogous to the theory behind the Electoral College's selection of the President, which balances the populous States against the more agrarian States.

So beware of those who tout "democracy," in the 50% + 1 sense.

There are others who disagree with this so-called "danger," though.

This quote has been widely mis-attributed to varous people:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

But it and its variations contain certain elements of truth, disunirregardless of its original author. See

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser_Tytler

for a discussion of it and its original author.

Title: Re: I didn't think the loathsome Democrat Ralph Northam could lose...
Post by: MechAg94 on October 30, 2017, 08:02:22 PM
I recall Republicans complaining about this back in the 80's in Texas.  Democrats complained when things swung to the Republicans in the 90's.
Title: Re: I didn't think the loathsome Democrat Ralph Northam could lose...
Post by: just Warren on October 30, 2017, 08:08:31 PM
Here's a guy that says gerrymandering doesn't matter much at all. (http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/20/learned-stop-worrying-love-gerrymandering/)
Title: Re: I didn't think the loathsome Democrat Ralph Northam could lose...
Post by: 230RN on October 31, 2017, 09:14:16 AM
Here's a guy that says gerrymandering doesn't matter much at all. (http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/20/learned-stop-worrying-love-gerrymandering/)

From that link:

Quote
What courts should remember is that the gerrymandering fight is not new, nor are the circumstances now so different from those that have existed since the republic’s early days. The answer then, as now, was that gerrymandering cannot defeat a public sufficiently aroused against it.

And there's the oint in that guy's flyment.  Most people aren't even aware of the effects of redistricting (gerrymandering) unless the local newpapers are against that particular border-shifting and make a stink about it.  And most newspapers' editorial slant is toward enhancing leftist ideology.

In my opinion.

So if redistricting will favor leftist ideology, not much is said.  If it is unfavorable to leftists, there's a stink about it in the papers.  Usually because "democracy."  Yay for democracy, feh on balancing population density effects.

More:

Quote
Moreover, the more extreme the gerrymander, the more likely it is to crumble and even to benefit the other party. The courts need never get involved in a political gerrymandering fight because gerrymanders are inherently self-defeating.

Just because he says so, don't make it so.

Another example of taking an unlikely extreme case  and drawing general conclusions from it.

fistful, what's that debating technique called?  There must  be a latin phrase for it.  "Reductio ad bulshito"?

Terry
Title: Re: I didn't think the loathsome Democrat Ralph Northam could lose...
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 31, 2017, 09:25:51 AM
No discussion of the Confederate truck ad? I guess nothing they do is shocking anymore.
Title: Re: I didn't think the loathsome Democrat Ralph Northam could lose...
Post by: Scout26 on October 31, 2017, 12:23:51 PM
Ladies and Germs.  May I present how Mike Madigan redrew the map after the 2010 (after our "Republican" governor was sent to prison going several others),  Any way if you know anything about the Chicagoland area, it's that Dupage county (due west of Chicago) and the Northwest Suburbs of Cook County are heavily R.  (That's basically the 6th District).

The 1st is Jessie Jackson's Jr's old seat.  Since the southside is densely populated, it's D voters cancel out the R's in rural northern Will County.
Same with 2nd, 3rd, 10th, and 11th Districts 
4th is Luis Gutierrez's seat.  Lumping all the Hispanic's from Little Village and Humbolt Park together.
5th, 9th, and 10th are full of limousine liberals. 
8th can be competitive.
12th, 13th and 14th are solidly R because they all got lumped together.  You can only draw the lines to make sure you have a majority of D's and D majority districts.  You have to some time lump the R's together.  (IIRC, the D districts are barely D majorities, like 55% for the most part.  While the R majority districts are like 70-75% R's.)

I won't even go into how he drew the Statehouse lines, so that it's easy for the D's to have super-majorities in both houses.

I really, really hate this state.