General Discussion

jeff47

(26,549 posts)

91. No, they are the ones who choose the winner.

Reply to MineralMan (Reply #90)

Wed Apr 8, 2015, 01:11 PM

Apr 2015

The opinions of those who found both options unacceptable count too. They just don't select the winner of the election.

What part of that do you not understand?

The part where you think browbeating will increase turnout.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

150 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

So, does Rahm's victory in Chicago tell us anything? [View all] MineralMan Apr 2015 OP

Money talks and wins elections now Ichingcarpenter Apr 2015 #1

Money has always been important in elections. MineralMan Apr 2015 #5

That's why Hillary Ichingcarpenter Apr 2015 #12

Why does other politicians go to the same sources and you only mentioned Hillary? Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #14

Why don't you Ichingcarpenter Apr 2015 #17

Okay Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #24

Yes .......... I'm a sellout.....for personal advancement........LOL Ichingcarpenter Apr 2015 #44

Start the advancement of yourself, maybe running for office in the next election, show what Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #46

My brother was the county judge of Travis county for three terms Ichingcarpenter Apr 2015 #49

Quite frankly, many of us do a lot for our party and country and our communities.......... leftofcool Apr 2015 #86

like you have DONE NOTHING Ichingcarpenter Apr 2015 #102

Poster was asked what has he done Long Drive Apr 2015 #111

You don't know how I see things. MineralMan Apr 2015 #20

With over 50% not voting, this same group who cries they do not have a candidate they are Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #27

Yup. We have elections. Someone wins. MineralMan Apr 2015 #37

You forget that if they don't vote F4lconF16 Apr 2015 #79

Who are they? MineralMan Apr 2015 #83

This message was self-deleted by its author Dragonfli Apr 2015 #141

If it was just money republicans would have california JI7 Apr 2015 #98

tHATS A BULLSHIT STANCE Ichingcarpenter Apr 2015 #103

Yes. Most Americans don't care enough to get off their asses and go vote. octoberlib Apr 2015 #2

Charles Pierce had an interesting piece on one particular influence on the race he bullwinkle428 Apr 2015 #3

Completely agree with you. kysrsoze Apr 2015 #10

I don't think Emanuel won handily. kysrsoze Apr 2015 #4

Twelve points is "handily" FBaggins Apr 2015 #7

If you say so. He couldn't muster 50% in the general. kysrsoze Apr 2015 #9

What's my point? FBaggins Apr 2015 #15

I sort of agree that a 12 point victory in a race with 28% turnout is less than 'handily won' at Bluenorthwest Apr 2015 #22

So your point is there's nothing to learn here. In other words, there is no point. kysrsoze Apr 2015 #55

for a mayor of Chicago? foo_bar Apr 2015 #31

When both are of the same party? Yes FBaggins Apr 2015 #42

That's because it's the first time that ever happened. jeff47 Apr 2015 #61

That was the point FBaggins Apr 2015 #66

As long as you also ignore the abysmal turnout. Then it becomes "clear". (nt) jeff47 Apr 2015 #68

Poor turnout doesn't make a victoy less clear FBaggins Apr 2015 #72

Sure it does. jeff47 Apr 2015 #87

Only if you move the goalposts to an entirely different field. FBaggins Apr 2015 #89

Only those who vote have their opinions counted. MineralMan Apr 2015 #90

No, they are the ones who choose the winner. jeff47 Apr 2015 #91

I'm results-oriented. In an election, only results MineralMan Apr 2015 #94

And when the results are bad whomever wins? jeff47 Apr 2015 #101

Then don't show up. See if that works out better for you. MineralMan Apr 2015 #107

Voters who were satisifed with Rahm didn't have to vote in order for Rahm to win. Major Hogwash Apr 2015 #118

Yah, but a bunch of them turned out and voted for him. MineralMan Apr 2015 #122

Evidently not! With a poor turnout like this, nothing can be drawn from it to predict the 2016 . . Major Hogwash Apr 2015 #129

That's not a particularly low turnout for an odd-numbered MineralMan Apr 2015 #133

***Please wait . . . flip flop in progress*** Major Hogwash Apr 2015 #135

Absolutely! Clinton didn't win 50% of the vote in 1992, and yet he was President. Major Hogwash Apr 2015 #120

More importantly, he won by almost 6% and better than 2-1 in electroral votes FBaggins Apr 2015 #124

Ahhh, the Electoral College! Major Hogwash Apr 2015 #132

First runoff ever because the law was changed frazzled Apr 2015 #142

Thanks for your post. octoberlib Apr 2015 #13

Why doesn't this over 50% offer another candidate? You can say people are not enthusiastic about Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #16

I don't disagree. I think the problem here was that octoberlib Apr 2015 #63

Easier voting would be very good. I have worked the past few years in a voting precinct and some Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #99

Because any potential candidate will be shredded by the party machine jeff47 Apr 2015 #65

But why do machine attacks work? It's not like people can't take 2 minutes and Google the positions Chathamization Apr 2015 #67

Because those "change" candidates only start with a sliver of support. jeff47 Apr 2015 #69

How many machine candidates lie about progressive issues on their sites? I haven't seen any saying Chathamization Apr 2015 #70

You're talking as if there are only two candidates. jeff47 Apr 2015 #85

When over 50% do not vote, then if this 50% got a candidate, went and voted who do you think Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #100

In this case there were just two candidates. And the progressive had heavy progressive support. Chathamization Apr 2015 #144

Probably not FBaggins Apr 2015 #6

+++++ LeftInTX Apr 2015 #104

Changing the structure of elections has consequences FBaggins Apr 2015 #106

Money talks and big money talks loudly. hobbit709 Apr 2015 #8

Yes. A few things, maybe...1) the majority of voters vote against their own interests Zorra Apr 2015 #11

Did electronic voting prevent over 50% of the voters from showing up and voting? Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #19

I don't know; but it's not likely. See #2 above. nt Zorra Apr 2015 #113

This is true, and those who thinks it a waste of time to vote should be happy with whatever results Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #127

Agreed. Yellowdog Dem in every GE since I was old enough to vote. Zorra Apr 2015 #134

Yes, we know who isn't for our issues, the GOP is still taking from the 90% and giving welfare to Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #137

Who is going to run things in the aftermath of this "revolution"? DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #21

I don't know. Hopefully really smart and kind democrats, even better Zorra Apr 2015 #34

They were landed bourgeoisie slaveholders... DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #45

Blahblahblah. Do you have any idea how simplistic and ludicrous your response is? Zorra Apr 2015 #105

Ooooooohhhhh, I'm so hurt by your puerile invective DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #140

I voted paper ballot in my ward yesterday alcibiades_mystery Apr 2015 #57

At some point you have to faith in the system ... DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #59

Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2015 #88

Yes: you can't just be an "anti" candidate frazzled Apr 2015 #18

Thanks for your response. That's exactly what I was MineralMan Apr 2015 #23

Re-enforces that human nature hates and fears change. CK_John Apr 2015 #25

Yes, that's pretty much the case. MineralMan Apr 2015 #35

Obama clearly campaigned & advocated policy views that he did 180s on JonLP24 Apr 2015 #50

Rahm had far more money JonLP24 Apr 2015 #26

You mean he had a GOTV effort in place? MineralMan Apr 2015 #38

It certainly helps to have the resources JonLP24 Apr 2015 #60

I think the election that tells us most about 2016 was the one in Ferguson. Bluenorthwest Apr 2015 #28

I certainly hope you're right. MineralMan Apr 2015 #39

Let's hope. nt msanthrope Apr 2015 #71

It takes more and more votes today to challenge a single campaign dollar. nt valerief Apr 2015 #29

Emanuel got trounced in numerous Latino majority wards alcibiades_mystery Apr 2015 #30

How many of those wards are there? MineralMan Apr 2015 #74

Chuy won handily in 16 of the approx 48 Wards alcibiades_mystery Apr 2015 #78

Thanks. I did not have that information. MineralMan Apr 2015 #92

Yes, he won handily alcibiades_mystery Apr 2015 #93

I'll have to take your word for his time as Mayor. MineralMan Apr 2015 #95

Whatever alcibiades_mystery Apr 2015 #96

Rahm had the only vote that counted and that was Michael Madigan's AngryAmish Apr 2015 #32

Stupid works. ieoeja Apr 2015 #33

He had 20 million dollars and is an incumbent? Starry Messenger Apr 2015 #36

Indeed, I'm sure those things played a large role. MineralMan Apr 2015 #41

It proves only one thing. 99Forever Apr 2015 #40

So, do you suppose campaign financing is going to MineralMan Apr 2015 #43

Fuck no. 99Forever Apr 2015 #47

There's not going to be any revolution in the US. MineralMan Apr 2015 #52

Well no shit. 99Forever Apr 2015 #56

Well, I'm not seeing anything in your posts that indicate MineralMan Apr 2015 #75

What am I proposing to improve our sysytem? 99Forever Apr 2015 #146

Where I am that's exactly who runs. MineralMan Apr 2015 #147

Chicago supports their mayor. Buzz Clik Apr 2015 #48

That a Republican billionaire got what he paid for: think Apr 2015 #51

"Not as bad as the other guy" truebluegreen Apr 2015 #53

Since 20% of Chicago voters voted for Romney in 2012 betterdemsonly Apr 2015 #54

I would guess that a lot of that 20% stayed home Amishman Apr 2015 #73

The GOP Machine was behind Rahm fredamae Apr 2015 #58

Given the reports coming out of Chicago regarding doctored ballots it says something. davsand Apr 2015 #62

yeah, NM_Birder Apr 2015 #64

One of Rahm's own advisers was kind enough to share what it told him. pa28 Apr 2015 #76

Ya, the crazy left. Didn't Rahm have a few choice words for that? think Apr 2015 #77

That adviser is absolutely correct. MineralMan Apr 2015 #80

Yep. Who needs the left when you have a GOP Billionaire stuffing your coffer? think Apr 2015 #82

The left needs the left. MineralMan Apr 2015 #84

The left just got beat by a Democrat funded by the GOP. The party is the problem. Not the left. think Apr 2015 #138

Not sure about that Chathamization Apr 2015 #145

" . . . can think great thoughts and read poetry for Chuy. . . " Major Hogwash Apr 2015 #125

He did not win in all wards. former9thward Apr 2015 #81

That you can cheat, outspend your opponent by a lot and still not win by much. Rex Apr 2015 #97

It tells me that we have marketing campaigns, not political campaigns.[n/t] Maedhros Apr 2015 #108

What does that even mean? Campaigns are marketing. MineralMan Apr 2015 #109

They sell us products we don't need, Maedhros Apr 2015 #114

Are there elections? MineralMan Apr 2015 #116

I have a friend very much like you. Maedhros Apr 2015 #143

Yes, the system is broken. Broward Apr 2015 #110

I see. In what way is it broken? MineralMan Apr 2015 #112

I believe there is truly a lot to be said about an excellent campaigner. NCTraveler Apr 2015 #115

It tells me that residents of Chicago elect their mayors BainsBane Apr 2015 #117

Mostly, I don't know where DUers are located. MineralMan Apr 2015 #121

If everyone did the same BainsBane Apr 2015 #123

Yes. I believe you're correct. MineralMan Apr 2015 #128

Money trumps peace and nearly everything else in this country. JEB Apr 2015 #119

That's easy enough to say, I suppose. MineralMan Apr 2015 #130

Not something I want to say. JEB Apr 2015 #149

Depends on the office. MineralMan Apr 2015 #150

IMO, his opponent didn't inspire a great deal of confidence. Vinca Apr 2015 #126

Yep... WillyT Apr 2015 #131

Posted to for later ... 1StrongBlackMan Apr 2015 #136

Post removed Post removed Apr 2015 #139

Damn, Ichingcarpenter's (rude) question to me got hidden ... 1StrongBlackMan Apr 2015 #148