Here are Shipwreckedcrew's numbers for Seattle--read it and weep for your country. Please note, btw, that Shipwreckedcrew is reporting here the total number of votes received--not the winning margin. It's scary:
So who are the nitwits that couldn’t see the potential consequences of their actions, and how did they get elected?
As I noted, there are 9 Council members — 7 are elected from districts, and 2 are elected “at-large.” Seattle has approximately 750,000 residents and assuming each district has approximately the same population, each council person elected from a district represents about 105,000 people.
Lisa Herbold won her most recent election in 2019 with 20,000 votes.
Tammy Morales won her most recent election 2019 with 16,000 votes.
Kshama Sawant won her most election in 2019 with 22,000 votes.
Alex Petersen won his most recent election in 2019 with 17,000 votes.
Deborah Juarez won her most recent election in 2019 with 19,500 votes.
Dan Strauss won his most recent election in 2019 with 24,000 votes.
Andrew Lewis won his most recent election in 2019 with 16,000 votes.
Theresa Mosqueda won her most recent election to an at-large seat in 2017 with 121,000 votes.
Lorena Gonzalez won her most recent election to an at-large seat in 2017 with 146,000 votes.
24,000 votes — less than 25% of the population of the City Council District — is sending these idiots into office.
The 121,000 votes city-wide received by Theresa Mosqueda represents only 16% of the total population of Seattle.
You get the leadership you vote for.
That should be sobering, because only about half of Americans vote in national elections. On the other hand, here's a reminder from Don Surber--Good news for Trump voters. Surber quotes a professor of some sort, who quotes a Fox News poll:
Arbour wrote, "Democrats seem very enthusiastic about a candidate this fall. But that candidate is Donald Trump. Democratic voters want him out of office, and they are indeed enthusiastic about making that happen."
Sure, just like Republicans wanted Obama out in 2012. How'd that work out?
Indeed, Arbour's own column undercut his argument, as he wrote, "Our June Fox News poll found that 62% of Trump’s voters say that their motivation for voting is 'enthusiasm for your candidate to win.' Only 31% of Biden voters say the same about their motivation."
But, Arbour argued, Biden raised more money in the past couple of months.
Hillary spent twice as much as Donald John Trump in 2016. Again, I ask, how'd that work out?
What we're seeing with the polls is a massive voter suppression effort by Dems, to discourage Trump voters from turning out. It doesn't appear to be working. What effect will all the Antifa/BLM shenanigans have on turnout and voting? How many non-voters became Trump voters in 2016? Will they be encouraged by events to repeat? Remember 1968!
You've been on fire this weekend, Mark. Lots of good and poignant reading. My only caution on above, is whether the population numbers cited are all of voting age. If not, it isn't quite as bad as it's made to look. Don't get me wrong, though. I have no doubt it's bad. And to think Mayor Lightweight was elected by Lakefront Liberals is more than sad.ReplyDelete
If the non-MSM reports of black approval of Trump are true, the democrats are in trouble come November. Is it any wonder they want mail-in voting? Anything to be able to challenge the election results and carry on the chaos in which, as a political party, they bear nearly complete responsibility.ReplyDelete
Those who do not live in one of the liberal hell holes currently ripping themselves apart must be appalled - all in the name of BLM where few blacks seem to be committing the actual rioting. Then to have the riots and carnage endorsed by democratic politicians and their media allies cannot go unnoticed. Then there is the national police union's Trump endorsement. The only politician standing up against this violence and for law enforcement is Trump. That makes for a very easy decision in November for those desiring a return to normalcy.
It is not only the polls, but also the betting odds that have dramatically shifted in Biden’s favor. In the past, these used to be reliable because, so the argument went, people were putting up real money (and not just responding to a poll). How easy would it be to rig these, say, with an infusion of Soros or Bloomberg money? If Biden wins because Trump voters are demoralized, the money spent will have been a very good investment. So, my question is: Should we take the betting odds seriously or assume they too are rigged?ReplyDelete
So what are the betting odds of Biden winning? Where can I place a bet? I'd like to get some free money by betting on Trump.Delete
"People get the government they deserve."ReplyDelete
I often hear comments like, "My vote won't count. I live in the wrong district/state. I don't have time," or some such nonsense. My answer is usually along the lines of "then you hand your proxy to the village idiot to vote as they will in your name." Every voter counts. A none vote isn't neutral, It is a multiplier for the vote of those that make it to the polls. A none voter has automatically voted for the winner, whether they like it or not.
Democracy is inherently personal and active, as in requiring effort. Otherwise it would have have been the predominant condition of humanity for most of history rather than communal subjugation and slavery; though it would appear that a majority of humanity would gladly vote to permanently divest themselves of responsibility, which is the central plank of the Socialist agenda.
It does make one wonder whether our experiment has failed.Delete
Our experiment was terminated a long time ago. It worked while it lasted -- albeit imperfectly, which is the only way that social experiments ever work.Delete
The federal government's enumerated powers enabled it to carry out its duties that affected the entire country. Other decisions were made at the state and local levels, which meant that Americans could live in different ways and believe in different things without the need for conflict.
The United States was never meant to be a democracy, which the Founders knew had historically led to chaos and tyranny (see 2020). Democracy works best in smaller political units where voters have more in common with each other, and where individual voters can make some difference because politicians are accountable to them. Ironically, the latter is part of the reason for our current predicament. Local politicians found it easier to evade responsibility by kicking unpopular decisions "upstairs" to the national government, which was happy to take on additional powers.
It hasn't yet failed, but this year is a supreme test.Delete
My guess is that it'll pass this test, provided that the huge Deplorables turnout I expect isn't sabotaged, by antiFa, BLM etc. *physically* stopping this turnout, e.g. by blocking polling place doors in key pcts.
Deplorables will *try* to turnout, by the unprecedented combo of the lockdowns and riots, which rubbed in their noses the (Trotsky) view that, while you may not much care about history, history may sometimes care very much about you.
If these lockdowns etc. can't move Deplorables to turnout, then yeah, our experiment has failed.
(Tho, a run of c. 250 years ain't all that bad, as such runs go.)
"one might think that in Chicago... a mayoral election featuring two black women candidates might draw a significant number of black voters."
Not necessarily. There was minimal incentive for blacks to turn out, since Honky was doomed to lose in any case.
Blacks turnout, when they get a chance to *replace* a Honky with a black.
To lockdowns etc., you can add the Cancel Culture intimidation, which, I'm guessing, is getting well-known enough, as to inspire huge spikes in turnout, among those whose noses are now being rubbed into the point of Trotsky's aphorism.Delete
If this rioting etc., stuff, plus big Durham busts, can't bring a Perfect Storm of turnout by Deplorables, then, indeed, our experiment has failed.
What spurs turnout is usually dramatic contrasts, as perceived at the time.
Think JFK's Catholicism in 1960, which was hugely feared (esp. in "red" parts of the US), but which also spurred tidal waves of Catholics' voting.
@NSPalmer, I'm afraid you're right. Among other factors, I would include the Income Tax--once politicians had that tool for bribing the populace, responsible government couldn't last.Delete
"Local politicians found it easier to evade responsibility, by kicking unpopular decisions "upstairs" to the national government".Delete
Yeah, to the national government, which became the "popularly"-elected National Senate, elected mainly by big National $$, and thus all-but ignoring local
So, national policy is mostly made by nat'l lobbies, e.g. Big Pharma (w/ Fauci), Wall St./ Fed (w/ e.g. Helicopter Ben), the DS (w/ Higher Ed & the MSM), etc.
I'm not certain Shipwreckedcrew's argument is nearly as powerful as implied. His point that voter turnout in local elections is indicative of something--but what has turnout been historically? A data point for each of the council member's most recent election tells us next to nothing.ReplyDelete
How do we know that voter turnout described as "low" isn't historically typical? In other words, it's indicative of nothing beyond, possibly, indifference and apathy.
Most large cities are one-party enclaves. What's the point of voting for municipal services (trash collection, parks, and snow plowing) that don't have distinct Republican or Democrat ways of performing the service? As it is, what's offered in the local election isn't so much a choice as a roll of the dice.
Yes, NYC with Giuliani/Bloomberg was an excellent demonstration of the fact that policies about policing matters. And confirmed with the dismal performance of Kaiser Wilhelm. But other than the NYPost, there's little local condemnation of DiBlasio.
If it's failure, it's a failure to learn from the lessons of history as they seep into the past and other seeming priorities rise up given present conditions. Like much of the human condition, the status quo operates until it doesn't, and a search for a new normalcy begins anew.
Reality suggests that Seattle and Portland deserve what they've brought upon themselves. It's not so much failure as it is simple "fallen" mankind. Is failure to reach some kind of perfectibility truly failure?
Chicago has always been corrupt and crime-ridden. Other cities, e.g. Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis, New Orleans, Memphis, DC, have been one-party crime hellholes for decades. They're newsworthy for The Narrative of Orange Man Bad.
I think you're contradicting your own argument by first saying that there are no party ways of providing local services, and then providing examples to prove that there are.Delete
"Is failure to reach some kind of perfectibility truly failure?"
It's like grading. Failure to score 100 on every test isn't failure overall, but failure to maintain an average above, say, 70 IS failure.
You may see a contradiction--but my example of crime reduction with Giuliani/Bloomberg is the exception that proves the rule of status quo-stasis. I'm aware of nowhere else that reduced murder (and violent crime) anywhere close to the near 80%+ reduction achieved in NYC over 20 years.Delete
Additionally, many other large cities had high levels of murder and violent crime, but did little to abate it. There was no mystery to what Giuliani started, Bloomberg continued, and Di Blasio has somewhat unwound.
BTW, Bloomberg was a lifelong Democrat who registered and ran as a Republican to avoid the Democrat primary--no mystery there either, so it need not be a failure of Democrats, though prevalence suggests otherwise.
I can certainly agree with your grading analogy, unfortunately it appears an abstraction the voting public doesn't grasp. This is probably be because those most likely to vote are those least interacting with law enforcement, and vice versa.
But I don't think NY is the exception that proves a rule. If other big cities with crime problems, take CG as a good example, failed to try a change of party to address that existential problem, how does that decision to continue beating one's head against a brick wall prove that there's no difference between the parties?Delete
It’s still early in the election. I’m surprised the Left is attacking so strongly, early, when the impact is limited.ReplyDelete
Trump has laid a trap with the civil disorder. I don’t think that Antifa can stop in Portkand. The msm has managed so far to keep the meme of “mostly peaceful” demonstrations. Trump is going to smash this Overton window.
Covid is a wild card, and is hurting his campaign the most. My guess is we have reached peak infection.
Hints are Trump has an incredible ground game.
I’m worried over the Internet giants tilting the playing field.
Trump is laying the foundation with a lot of actions he will build on when they will be useful. Trump is a master of timing.
Check out my new post re Portland--this can't be good for Dems.Delete
The guy at Stanford is saying this morning that Covid will be done by August.
Regarding the income tax, Frank Chodorov, a member of the old right, agreed with you. His book "The Income Tax: Root of All Evil" is out of print but FEE has the full text online.ReplyDelete
Other harmful factors were the 17th and 19th Amendments to the Constitution.
Here's the link to Chodorov's book:
Thanks. In fact I was going to mention Senatorial election but decided to keep the comment brief. You're right.Delete
Whatever per-cent of Portlanders vote or don't vote - it doesn't matter. The only people there are angry & depressed.ReplyDelete
Pittsburgh 1978: my 18-year-old girlfriend's (liberal) 22-year-old sister (angry) retuned home to Pittsburgh to try to recruit people to join her in her weird new home-town far away called Portland Oregon. I didn't know anything about Portland but I knew it must be bad if this angry young woman (who told her sister to dump me) loved it.