Official OTHER elections thread

[molson]

Is there anything else interesting going on out there other than the main event?

I watched some of the Idaho US Senator debate the other tonight. One of the candidates is an organic farmer that legally changed his name to "Pro Life". He actually got into the debate. He says that the big mistake other politicans make is listening to people - they've thus strayed from god and the constitution. I want to write-him in for president based on honestly alone. Another 3rd party candidate wandered away during the debate, apparently because he was sick.

I saw Massachusettes has referendums to elminate the state income tax and decriminalize marijuana.

Anything interesting people are watching?

[JPhillips]

Prop 8 in CA is going to be a barn burner. It's like a South Park episode with the Mormons against the Hollywood gays.

[GrantDawg]

Research prop 8 learned me something. I didn't know Moonbeam was the Attorney General in California.

[lordscarlet]

For us, all the excitement ends after the primary.

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Prop 8 in CA is going to be a barn burner. It's like a South Park episode with the Mormons against the Hollywood gays.

The stance for the people on the Yes side is pretty militant, and shocking to me...but then I do look at the fact the mormon church is one of the largest organization rallying on it and since a lot of the people I know are from Utah, it gives that impression to me.

Still, it's going to be interesting.

[gottimd]

Slots in Maryland.

Sluts in Maryland.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by gottimd

Slots in Maryland.

Sluts in Maryland.

Are ya fer it r a'gin it?

[st.cronin]

There is a story I haven't really been following but my understanding is that Jerome Block Junior is a virtual shoe-in to be elected commissioner of water or something here in New Mexico, and will likely be indicted for various felonies soon after the election. He has apparently been in hiding? I'm not really sure, the things I have read don't really make a lot of sense.

http://www.marioburgos.com/2008/06/j...l-history.html

[Big Fo]

Tinklenberg - Bachmann in the Minnesota House race. I'm only interested in this one because of Bachmann's recent debacle on Hardball.

Also, the close Senate races in general just to see how close the Democrats get to 60.

[Cringer]

I am mildly excited because for the first time I have a 3rd party candidate to vote for in a local/regional election. Texas's 15th congressional district for the U.S. House of Reps has a Libertarian candidate. He has no chance since this district has only elected 6 different men to the post since 1902 with the current guy in there, Rubén Hinojosa, having been there for 12 years after the last guy was in there for 32 years. I wish there were term limits.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Prop 8 in CA is going to be a barn burner. It's like a South Park episode with the Mormons against the Hollywood gays.

I'm interested in the outcome/fallout on this one. I'd guess it'll pass, but I can't wait to see all the political maneuvering that might potentially try to set aside the decision.

My cousin is running unopposed for his PA house seat.

Fat Phil English is in danger of losing to some upstart named Kathy Dahlkemper. My district has been (R) since forever, looks like at least '83. Former Gov. and homeland security czar Thomas Ridge was our previous congressperson.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by molson

I saw Massachusettes has referendums to elminate the state income tax and decriminalize marijuana.

I still have no idea how I am going to vote for the state income tax referendum. Long story short, I hate how the majority of the money I pay in state tax is used for things that I never see the benefit of (ie: big dig, stuff in Boston, etc). My wife and I have been in a disagreement on this issue and actually spent a good 30-45 minutes talking about it today even.

My wife was a teacher before she fell ill and now her pulminologist does not want her to go back to teaching due to her having been a special education/early childhood education teacher (and those are the highest risk to get her sick again). She's gone back to get a second masters in child psychology in order to work as a school psychologist and she has gotten it into her head that no state income tax (ie this referendum passing) would mean teachers would directly see the downside in it with lower pay, or cut jobs. She is worried it could directly effect her and the school system.

While there likely is some level of truth to that, I told her honestly I have no problems whatso ever if the local property taxes went up to help cover that cost. I have no problem spending the money to see the benefit.. just the way it works today at the state level, I feel that I am subsidizing Boston and Springfield and Worcester. I'm torn and have no clue how I'll vote yet.

[larrymcg421]

I'm really, really, really hoping that Martin can beat Chambliss in the GA Senate race.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm really, really, really hoping that Martin can beat Chambliss in the GA Senate race.

Yeah. Even with the race tightening, the term "snowballs chance" keeps popping in my head.

[fantom1979]

Michigan has two ballot proposals.

Basically it is medical use of marijuana and permit stem cell research.

Prop 1
The proposed law would:
• Permit physician approved use of marijuana by registered patients with debilitating medical conditions including cancer, glaucoma, HIV, AIDS, hepatitis C, MS and other conditions as may be approved by the Department of Community Health.
• Permit registered individuals to grow limited amounts of marijuana for qualifying patients in an enclosed, locked facility.
• Require Department of Community Health to establish an identification card system for patients qualified to use marijuana and individuals qualified to grow marijuana.
• Permit registered and unregistered patients and primary caregivers to assert medical reasons for using marijuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marijuana.


Prop 2
The proposed constitutional amendment would:
• Expand use of human embryos for any research permitted under federal law subject to the following limits: the embryos --
-- are created for fertility treatment purposes;
-- are not suitable for implantation or are in excess of clinical needs;
-- would be discarded unless used for research;
-- were donated by the person seeking fertility treatment.
• Provide that stem cells cannot be taken from human embryos more than 14 days after cell division begins.
• Prohibit any person from selling or purchasing human embryos for stem cell research.
• Prohibit state and local laws that prevent, restrict or discourage stem cell research, future therapies and cures.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I still have no idea how I am going to vote for the state income tax referendum. Long story short, I hate how the majority of the money I pay in state tax is used for things that I never see the benefit of (ie: big dig, stuff in Boston, etc). My wife and I have been in a disagreement on this issue and actually spent a good 30-45 minutes talking about it today even.

My wife was a teacher before she fell ill and now her pulminologist does not want her to go back to teaching due to her having been a special education/early childhood education teacher (and those are the highest risk to get her sick again). She's gone back to get a second masters in child psychology in order to work as a school psychologist and she has gotten it into her head that no state income tax (ie this referendum passing) would mean teachers would directly see the downside in it with lower pay, or cut jobs. She is worried it could directly effect her and the school system.

While there likely is some level of truth to that, I told her honestly I have no problems whatso ever if the local property taxes went up to help cover that cost. I have no problem spending the money to see the benefit.. just the way it works today at the state level, I feel that I am subsidizing Boston and Springfield and Worcester. I'm torn and have no clue how I'll vote yet.

Teacher salaries (and the quality of public schools) are already highly-correlated with real-estate values, and we've had overrides for years in Concord (a rich, high-quality school system) to pay for the schools. No state income tax would certainly exacerbate the inequality between districts and screw over the Springfields/Pittsfields/Worcesters, but it won't have an effect on teachers salaries and education in any decent to well-off suburb - real estate values are tied to education quality, so theres a financial incentive to keep those strong. The bad thing is the state will play chicken and cut the essential/desirable services - the most egregious one right now is saying they won't fund dam upkeep after the floods that wiped out some town near here last spring. It will also destroy higher education funding, but UMass-Amherst is already having its budget cut 6% this year (and that's from 48th in the nation in spending on higher ed).

At the end of day, tell your wife not to worry - Dimasi has already said he won't enact it if passed, just like the Legislature refused to drop the income tax rate to 5.0% and refused to fund clean elections. They know better than the voters what's good for them, which is the number one reason I'll be voting for it.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

Michigan has two ballot proposals.

Basically it is medical use of marijuana and permit stem cell research.

Prop 1
The proposed law would:
• Permit physician approved use of marijuana by registered patients with debilitating medical conditions including cancer, glaucoma, HIV, AIDS, hepatitis C, MS and other conditions as may be approved by the Department of Community Health.
• Permit registered individuals to grow limited amounts of marijuana for qualifying patients in an enclosed, locked facility.
• Require Department of Community Health to establish an identification card system for patients qualified to use marijuana and individuals qualified to grow marijuana.
• Permit registered and unregistered patients and primary caregivers to assert medical reasons for using marijuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marijuana.


Prop 2
The proposed constitutional amendment would:
• Expand use of human embryos for any research permitted under federal law subject to the following limits: the embryos --
-- are created for fertility treatment purposes;
-- are not suitable for implantation or are in excess of clinical needs;
-- would be discarded unless used for research;
-- were donated by the person seeking fertility treatment.
• Provide that stem cells cannot be taken from human embryos more than 14 days after cell division begins.
• Prohibit any person from selling or purchasing human embryos for stem cell research.
• Prohibit state and local laws that prevent, restrict or discourage stem cell research, future therapies and cures.

I'll be voting yes on prop 2.

Prop 1 however I'll probably be voting no for 2 reasons. First, it seems it will create more bureaucracy. Second, the last point has me worried the way its worded. For example, if I get hit by a driver who's high on medical Mary Jane, does that mean the other driver is immune to prosecution for driving while high?

[miked]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm really, really, really hoping that Martin can beat Chambliss in the GA Senate race.

+1000, but too bad Jim Martin is a dolt as well. I really wish the Dems actually had an inspiring candidate, but that's life. Interesting to see the constant barrage of negative campaigning from both sides, but the Chambliss ones are really whack. I love the one where they are talking about Martin's past and they flash the headline "Governor fires Martin after children die" or something.

But it's really amazing how Chambliss has been around so long and done absolutely nothing.

[Butter]

Ohio has 2 interesting proposals on the ballot, one of which has inspired some serious negative attack ads on pro gambler Lyle Berman, of all people.

Ohio Issue 6 (2008) - Ballotpedia

Then Issue 5 is about payday loans. Also, an interesting proposal.

Ohio Issue 5 (2008) - Ballotpedia

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Ohio has 2 interesting proposals on the ballot, one of which has inspired some serious negative attack ads on pro gambler Lyle Berman, of all people.

Ohio Issue 6 (2008) - Ballotpedia

Then Issue 5 is about payday loans. Also, an interesting proposal.

Ohio Issue 5 (2008) - Ballotpedia

Eh, I see they shitcanned the "healthy families act." That one seemed like a really bad idea.

The ads for issue 6 are pretty hilarious.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Polling on MA ballot questions has come out:

Question 1: Abolition of State Income Tax - 59% no 26% yes
Question 2: Decriminalization of Mary Jane - 51% yes 32% no
Question 3: Ban dog racing - 44% yes 43% no

Question 2 surprises me, just because all the advertising/editorials have been about how terrible an idea it is to decriminalize. Luckily it appears people are using their ability for independent thought to reject all the same arguments from "authority".

Dang, your state is so strange. Don't they know how cool it is to watch dog racing while high on legal marijuana when you don't pay income taxes? They only have one of the three going.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Polling on MA ballot questions has come out:

Question 1: Abolition of State Income Tax - 59% no 26% yes
Question 2: Decriminalization of Mary Jane - 51% yes 32% no
Question 3: Ban dog racing - 44% yes 43% no

Question 2 surprises me, just because all the advertising/editorials have been about how terrible an idea it is to decriminalize. Luckily it appears people are using their ability for independent thought to reject all the same arguments from "authority".

If those polls are accurate, then once again I feel like I am in the minority in Massachusetts as I am leaning the other way on both question 1 and 2. Question 3, I'd be voting yes to ban dog racing which does seem to be winning (but obviously not a majority opinion evidentally). This is like the reverse of my 3 years when I lived in Texas and every thing up for vote always was far too conservative for my tastes. I don't think I've voted with the majority from my state on anything since the mid 1990s.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Polling on MA ballot questions has come out:

Question 1: Abolition of State Income Tax - 59% no 26% yes
Question 2: Decriminalization of Mary Jane - 51% yes 32% no
Question 3: Ban dog racing - 44% yes 43% no

Question 2 surprises me, just because all the advertising/editorials have been about how terrible an idea it is to decriminalize. Luckily it appears people are using their ability for independent thought to reject all the same arguments from "authority".

I seem to recall the abolition question polling similarly before the last try, and everyone was shocked when it only lost by 8% in the actual vote. I expect a similar jump here, but it will still probably fall into the 40-45% range.

Glad to see Q2 doing well, although calling it decriminalization is a bit far. All its doing is changing possession of less than an ounce from a criminal charge to a civil charge and a fine. I don't know if there's actually a single person in jail for possessing that amount - everything I've heard it's pleaded down to a fine and probation anyways at that level.

Q3... I'm not a fan of dog racing at all, but as long as they're regulated and there's no abuse there I'm not sure why you ban a legitimate business and throw people out of work.

One thing I do think is underrated is how confusingly these ballot questions are written if you haven't seen them before. My sister was sending in her absentee ballot from Montana and she had to call us up to figure out which way they went. I'd wager that the noise level on these is at least 5%, and might be double digits, although it probably evens out.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

It is decriminalization, but not legalization. And there are differences, especially as it pertains to the aforementioned probation, difficulty obtaining federal student loans, obtaining federal employment.

But for me, it's more the principle. I'm a big proponent of legalization, so this is a step in some kind of a direction.

I was just referring to the scope - it's decriminalizing very minor possession, not Mary Jane as a whole.

Agreed on the rest.