PDA

View Full Version : Will Splitting the Vote Kill Meg/Carly?


Kynoch
11-02-2010, 12:25 PM
Some people feel the need to "vote their consciences" by voting for obscure candidates who don't have a chance in Hades at getting elected. Would we be all better off if they voted for the least objectionable major party candidate?

Meg and Carley would be fairly sad. Jerry and Babs would be far worse. WHat do we gain in a practical sense when we vote for someone who has no chance of winning?

Gray Peterson
11-02-2010, 12:51 PM
Carly doesn't deserve to be vote splitted. She is clearly the superior pro-gun candidate over Boxer.

Jerry Brown versus Meg Whitman, vote for Ogden or Nightengale would seem to help Jerry Brown. That being said, eMeg (I like calling her that) is the more anti-gun candidate of the two, from my perspective and seeing his actions versus eMeg's. There's a list floating about how Jerry has helped us, and his veto pen would be wielded for anything which costs the state more money (AB1810 or other similar legislation) versus eMeg who thinks signing gun control bills would likely be a good thing to be traded away.

Glock22Fan
11-02-2010, 12:51 PM
Whereas I kinda agree with the sentiment, do we really need yet another thread on this topic?

RomanDad
11-02-2010, 1:07 PM
I cannot wait for this election to be over.

scarville
11-02-2010, 1:28 PM
This is the real Day of the Dead. Dutiful citizens rush to the polls to choose between blood-sucking vampires and brain-eating zombies. Occasionally a citizen will waste his precious vote on someone who will neither suck his blood nor eat his brains but most of us know that, without the vampires and the zombies, civilization as we know it would cease to exist.

choprzrul
11-02-2010, 1:28 PM
Carly doesn't deserve to be vote splitted. She is clearly the superior pro-gun candidate over Boxer.

Jerry Brown versus Meg Whitman, vote for Ogden or Nightengale would seem to help Jerry Brown. That being said, eMeg (I like calling her that) is the more anti-gun candidate of the two, from my perspective and seeing his actions versus eMeg's. There's a list floating about how Jerry has helped us, and his veto pen would be wielded for anything which costs the state more money (AB1810 or other similar legislation) versus eMeg who thinks signing gun control bills would likely be a good thing to be traded away.

1. Jerry Brown == pro gun

2. Jerry Brown == anti business

3. Jerry Brown == no money left to buy guns & ammo

What, exactly, good is #1 when #3 happens?

I have a name for #3: Economic Gun Control.


Tell me how I am wrong?


.

383green
11-02-2010, 1:32 PM
1. Jerry Brown == pro gun

2. Jerry Brown == anti business

3. Jerry Brown == no money left to buy guns & ammo

What, exactly, good is #1 when #3 happens?

I have a name for #3: Economic Gun Control.


Tell me how I am wrong?


I have to give you honest credit for at least choosing not to vote for him for well-considered reasons, rather than the blind (and factually incorrect) "OMG! HE'S TOTALLY ANTI-GUN!" ranting we've seen so much of here lately.

bandook
11-02-2010, 1:38 PM
1. Jerry Brown == pro gun

2. Jerry Brown == anti business

3. Jerry Brown == no money left to buy guns & ammo

What, exactly, good is #1 when #3 happens?

I have a name for #3: Economic Gun Control.


Tell me how I am wrong?


.

Following that thought, when one day you do make enough money to buy the gun, there will be no gun available to buy.

I'd rather the gun be available and I not have the money to buy it than the other way round (besides, a hi-point 9mm is well under $200)

GrizzlyGuy
11-02-2010, 1:41 PM
WHat do we gain in a practical sense when we vote for someone who has no chance of winning?

Inner peace in knowing that you stayed true to your conscience and beliefs, and never-ever voted for a progressive socialist.

OleCuss
11-02-2010, 1:42 PM
Carly doesn't deserve to be vote splitted. She is clearly the superior pro-gun candidate over Boxer.

Jerry Brown versus Meg Whitman, vote for Ogden or Nightengale would seem to help Jerry Brown. That being said, eMeg (I like calling her that) is the more anti-gun candidate of the two, from my perspective and seeing his actions versus eMeg's. There's a list floating about how Jerry has helped us, and his veto pen would be wielded for anything which costs the state more money (AB1810 or other similar legislation) versus eMeg who thinks signing gun control bills would likely be a good thing to be traded away.

If you're thinking of the list I think you're thinking of - I'm the one who compiled it. And I voted for Meg.

I've yet to see good evidence that Meg is anti-gun. No good evidence that she is particularly pro-RKBA, either.

Strategically, however, Meg makes more sense. There is a pretty good chance that Meg will not sign on to further anti-RKBA legislation - especially since she may have designs on the POTUS or VP slot and that ain't happening if she signs much anti-RKBA legislation.

It's also important to realize that the Guv may be pretty important in re-districting in the very near future. This could be incredibly huge since someone who is not locked into creating safe seats for the likes of Mark Leno could mean that we don't have to deal with as much stupid legislation (anti-RKBA) just a few years down the road. This may not be as important if Props 20 passes and Prop 27 fails.

It is also important to remember that the Guv nominates/appoints the CA Supreme Court justices. IIRC, this is not an area in which JB has been a bright shining star in the past. . .

The eBay thing keeps coming up about Meg and I've yet to see a direct and attributable quote in which she said that she banned guns from eBay because she doesn't like them or thinks that people shouldn't have them, etc. If you understand how some large corporations run and what lawyers can do to them you begin to understand why if I were running eBay I might not allow the sale of firearms either.

And again, if you want to be upset with organizations which have chosen not to sell firearms on their site or in their catalog or in their store - you'll need to stay away from the NRA (links to Amazon which won't sell firearms), CGF (doesn't sell firearms), SAF (doesn't sell firearms), your local restaurants, WallyWorld, Lowe's, Home Depot, OSH, your church, etc. And I know, it doesn't fit with the licensing/incorporation, or business model of many of those entities - and it apparently didn't fit well into eBay's business model either.

I don't like Whitman and I'd not claim her as being known to be pro-RKBA. No good evidence. But no good evidence that she is anti-RKBA either.

Brown has a much more demonstrable track record of support for the 2A. I've not yet seen where he has cleaned up the MAWP issue which has happened on his watch. And the fact that he won't defend Prop 8 while he'll defend AB962 and the like would suggest that the RKBA is not the nearest and dearest thing to his heart.

Brown also strongly supports AB32 and that does not imply even a modicum of level-headedness. . .

So I voted Meg. If she wins I figure on working on being one of her supporters until she shows she's not worthy of that. The NRA should be working to make friends with her and her staff and I hope CGF will make itself available to advise on legal issues regarding to the RKBA. With McDonald and Heller at our backs I think we can end up with Whitman being modestly friendly to our position.

NightOwl
11-02-2010, 2:07 PM
Some people feel the need to "vote their consciences" by voting for obscure candidates who don't have a chance in Hades at getting elected. Would we be all better off if they voted for the least objectionable major party candidate?


The lesser of evils has worked oh so well thus far, hasn't it? Let's keep doing that.:rolleyes:

cmichini
11-02-2010, 2:14 PM
Some people feel the need to "vote their consciences" by voting for obscure candidates who don't have a chance in Hades at getting elected. Would we be all better off if they voted for the least objectionable major party candidate?

Meg and Carley would be fairly sad. Jerry and Babs would be far worse. WHat do we gain in a practical sense when we vote for someone who has no chance of winning?

My view is that generally I don't cave into the argument that a vote for a non R ot D is wasted. If we had more people stand up for their principles we might get a viable third party.

That said, there are times when pragmaticsm (sp?) takes precendence. For me, that is the Carly / Ma'am fight. Boxer is so toxic that I am morally compelled to cast a vote that has the biggest chance of unseating her, so I voted Carly even though I don't support her per se.

Kameltoe Harris is the other one I am actively voting AGAINST, from a pragmatic view, so Cooley it is.

The rest of the races don't warrant me to forego my principles so I vote for whomever I think is best (voting FOR candidates vs. against another). There is at least one that is a Dem. I think there's one R in there, but many are 'the other guys'.
If we don't start to starve the big parties of votes, they will continue on their agenda of completely destroying this once great country.

Just my opinion as afforded me under the COTUS.

hawk1
11-02-2010, 2:24 PM
The lesser of evils has worked oh so well thus far, hasn't it? Let's keep doing that.:rolleyes:

This.

Glock22Fan
11-02-2010, 2:50 PM
The lesser of evils has worked oh so well thus far, hasn't it? Let's keep doing that.:rolleyes:

Voting for the lesser of two evils doesn't work all that well, but it works a lot better than voting for a no-hope third candidate. That has been tried for just as long as voting for the lesser evil.

To the best of my experience, voting for the lesser evil sometimes keeps the greater evil out of office, whereas voting for a no-hoper has never done any good at all and may actually help the greater evil.

383green
11-02-2010, 2:52 PM
To the best of my experience, voting for the lesser evil sometimes keeps the greater evil out of office, whereas voting for a no-hoper has never done any good at all and may actually help the greater evil.

Maybe we ought to start teaching game theory more widely in schools.

Dr. Peter Venkman
11-02-2010, 3:08 PM
I wrote-in Cthulhu.

scarville
11-02-2010, 3:43 PM
Maybe we ought to start teaching game theory more widely in schools.
Certainly easier than teaching ethics or values.

OleCuss
11-02-2010, 3:50 PM
Drudgreport is suggesting Boxer has beaten Fiorina. I think that with about 4 hours of voting left this might be a little premature.

OleCuss
11-02-2010, 3:52 PM
Certainly easier than teaching ethics or values.

Winning is necessary. If you and those who share your ethics and values are politically or physically dead - then there is no longer any proponent of said ethics and values.

Tactics and strategy are necessary to the triumph of right.

Kynoch
11-02-2010, 3:52 PM
Inner peace in knowing that you stayed true to your conscience and beliefs, and never-ever voted for a progressive socialist.

I don't know that it would give me any inner peace IF I could have been part of keeping the worse of two options out of office and failed to do so.

Kynoch
11-02-2010, 3:56 PM
My view is that generally I don't cave into the argument that a vote for a non R ot D is wasted. If we had more people stand up for their principles we might get a viable third party.

That said, there are times when pragmaticsm (sp?) takes precendence. For me, that is the Carly / Ma'am fight. Boxer is so toxic that I am morally compelled to cast a vote that has the biggest chance of unseating her, so I voted Carly even though I don't support her per se.

Kameltoe Harris is the other one I am actively voting AGAINST, from a pragmatic view, so Cooley it is.

The rest of the races don't warrant me to forego my principles so I vote for whomever I think is best (voting FOR candidates vs. against another). There is at least one that is a Dem. I think there's one R in there, but many are 'the other guys'.
If we don't start to starve the big parties of votes, they will continue on their agenda of completely destroying this once great country.

Just my opinion as afforded me under the COTUS.

Yeah, that's happen soon... :rolleyes:

HowardW56
11-02-2010, 4:05 PM
I cannot wait for this election to be over.

:iagree:

chris
11-02-2010, 6:22 PM
Drudgreport is suggesting Boxer has beaten Fiorina. I think that with about 4 hours of voting left this might be a little premature.

no surprise there at all. it just proves that the people of this state are so stupid when it comes to voting that they will vote for the same people that screw them over and over again. i guess when you are used to getting F***** all the time it just feels natural.