Election Results

[xiphias]

Well, that was disappointing.

Looks like the Republicans control the United States. So, we'll be going to war, corporations will gain more power, and a few other things I don't like will happen.

However, I have to admit that this has happened largely because liberals in the the United States have been doing a terrible job of getting a real message out there, something that people will respond to.

The Republican candidate won the governorship in Massachusetts. Which doesn't surprise me that much. He got just barely over 50% of the vote. The Democrat got 45%, and the Greens got 3%. The independent and the Libertarian both got around 1%.

So I don't feel bad about voting for the Greens. O'Brien couldn't have won, even if she got every anti-Romney vote.

The ballot question results are weird. Abolishing the state income tax lost, barely. 45% of the people voted for it.

I can't imagine why any sane person would! And I really can't imagine why someone would vote for that issue and not vote for the Libertarian candidate. The only thing I can imagine is that 45% of the people voting think that Money Is Magic Stuff That Governments Just Get And Can Spend.

Two-thirds of the voters voted to require English language immersion classes. Now, I don't have a problem with that idea, but I do have a serious problem with the bill. It may be a good idea, but it's a lousy bill. I wonder if the 68% of the people who voted for it actually read the bill.

And 75% of the people said that they didn't like the idea of clean elections, and they'd rather have special interests buying and selling politicans. But that was just an opinion poll.

In the other opinion polls put on the ballot, every district where the question was asked wants to see Finneran out as Speaker of the House. And in every district where the question was asked, people support decriminalization of marijuana.

Comments

[goljerp]

The ballot question results are weird. Abolishing the state income tax lost, barely. 45% of the people voted for it.

I can't imagine why any sane person would! And I really can't imagine why someone would vote for that issue and not vote for the Libertarian candidate. The only thing I can imagine is that 45% of the people voting think that Money Is Magic Stuff That Governments Just Get And Can Spend.

<sarcasm>Well, it's my money. Not the government's. Why should I give it to them? If I give it to them, they'll just spend it on something. I don't need anything from the government. Well, except for police and fire protection. And money for the schools. And money for Bobby's school soccer team. And the highways do need repairs, I guess. And state-subsidized mass transit to keep the smog levels down. And money to make sure our enviromental laws are being followed. And money from the state to help my town's budget. And funding for that new arts center. And...</sarcasm>

I'd have to go with the "Money Is Magic Stuff That Governments Just Get And Can Spend" theory. (There was an interesting article in last Thursday's NYT which wrote about how there is no research which shows that increased taxes leads to decreased economic growth; in fact there is strong evidence that there's no relationship between the two. There might be a link between responsible government spending and growth, but that's not synonomous with "less taxes". (In fact, you could argue that if you only spend the minimum amount of money on something, you get far less benefits than fully funding it. Take Amtrak as an example - if they'd had enough money to upgrade all of the track between Boston and Washington, so their high speed trains could, well, travel at high speed all the way, and buy enough engines and cars so that flaws in some wouldn't cripple the system, then far more people would use the new acella. Imagine if the prices were lower, too...) Also the movement that our president seems to be spearheading is not, strictly speaking "less taxes"; rather it's "less taxes for the rich"... (Don't get me started about the repeal of the Estate tax))

War Drums

[(Anonymous)]

Don't be so hasty -- are you really sure we are going to war? W may be stupid, but he's not dumb. If anything, he just outfoxed all the Democrats. Keeping Iraq on the front page every day for the past few months sure took the wind out of the Democratic sails for every one of their legitimate issues. Did you see or hear any discussion on any issue where the Democrats had an edge? What ever happened to "it's the economy, stupid"? The worsening economy was on the minds of the voters, but where was the Democratic outrage about the situation? All wrapped up with Iraq, which is a total non-issue. Why now? Why not? Kept everyone occupied and their minds off the real issues. Now all W has to do is say "yup, we'll go along with the UN like we should have all along" and this whole thing blows over. Stupid, yes. Dumb, not by a long shot. It's the American voter who was just hoodwinked.



BTW, did anyone notice how conveniently the stock market took a major uptick right before the election with absolutely NO cause to justify it? Manipulation? W? Nah, couldn't be ...