Election Day Open Thread

two big close ones in PA and IL

We didn’t win them all, but there are a lot fewer Liberal Socialists; consequently, we can concentrate our attacks and fields of fire. This is going to be fun guys. The California Dems and Harry Reid are open season with no bag limit. Oil your keyboards, sight in your monitors, check your windage and elevation, eight hundred meters isn’t that hard if you concentrate, trigger squeeze and breathing. (I know it is a dangling participle, but I have had several adult beverages and I like the way it sounds. Check it out if you have never seen a dangling participle. :wink:)

Tomorrow is a new era and we have the momentum.

Nan G, California is the living embodiment of insanity: Repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting a different result. I can’t fathom why anyone with any functioning brain cells would want another dose of Governor Moonbeam.

And the passage of Prop 27 just makes it worse.

Will the last financially solvent person to leave California please turn out the lights?

Larry, you didn’t weigh in on the issue that so many Liberals and stoners were supporting, the legalization of pot; fortunately, it has been defeated, but it would have been interesting to hear a Liberal health care professional weigh in on the issue. There is the health issue as well as the possibility of pot being a yellow brick road leading to greater dependence and degeneracy; yet many liberals swore it was a saving grace of the 21 st century.

I find myself asking why? Is it merely a ruse to avoid the problems associated with being busted or maybe the opportunity to make the public aware of pot while escalating the thrill factor and creating an ever increasingly dependent population .

Hi, Skookum. Haven’t spoken with you much, before this, but I enjoy reading your stuff.

I’ve been wrestling with the pot issue myself, ever since the early 1970s, when I was a graduate student in pharmacology at the University of Michigan. The department, at the time, was very strong in the area of drug abuse and hosted an international symposium on the subject, where an entire session dealt with the pros and cons of legalization of so-called recreational drugs.

Here are the cons against pot legalization:

1. It’s bad for individual health. Mental, as well as physical. I’ve never been a pot smoker or pot eater myself, nor have I ever used any other recreational drugs, beyond alcohol. One of my past friends, a heavy pot smoker, died of lung cancer. On the other hand, I’ve also never had a cigarette in my mouth in my life, and I’m a rabid antismoker. Yet I would certainly not be in favor of criminalizing tobacco use.

2. It’s a gateway drug (leading to the use of other drugs of abuse). But the counter argument is that the reason it’s a gateway drug is that it puts the user into contact with the pusher, with a portfolio of other drugs. Keep users away from pushers, and there could well be fewer users of more self-destructive drugs.

The major pros are (1) putting cannabis narcos out of business and (2) raising tax revenues.

I’ve gone back and forth on this issue, over the decades. I didn’t make up my mind on how I’d vote today, until I was literally getting out of my car at the fire station which is my polling place.

What decided it for me, at the last minute, was thinking about an HBO series I’m currently watching, called “Boardwalk Empire.” It was about prohibition and all the violent crime it spawned. On the other hand, maybe if prohibition were still enforced, there’d be more violent crimes but fewer violent traffic accidents and whatnot, and maybe there’d be fewer dead people, overall, and less cost to society.

I don’t have the answer, but, for today, I voted “yes” (on legalizing pot in California). My rationalization was the same as that with regard to my “no” vote on suspending enforcement of the CO2 emissions curbs. That being that, after arguing about this stuff for decades, it would be nice to have some actual data. Let’s have one state try it (i.e. CO2 controls and pot legalization) and see how it actually works out, in the real world. If it works, then fine. If it doesn’t work, then that’s very good information for the rest of the country to have.

But Prop 19 lost, and the debate will continue, without new data from California.

Thanks for asking.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Larry, thank you for the reply. We have a similar belief system.

I think the wisdom of Solomon is needed for the correct answer, if there is one on this issue. Some of those with a positive view are “recreational” drug users and want to decrease the cost or obtain some other personal benefit in legalization. I tend to doubt the motivation of the most ardent proponents.

One of my real concerns is the legalization of a “High” state of being and its effect on society. These people will be driving and performing many other functions of our life with a certain approval for their behavior: of course, many are functioning in this altered state with no one, at least us non-professional health care types, being aware of their altered state.

In my industry, the horse business, there is supposedly rampant drug use, but no one does it front of me or asks me to participate, so I am oblivious to the problem. Once in awhile, greed gets the best of someone and the will get “busted” with a fortune in drugs and off to prison they go; bringing up another facet of the problem, overcrowding of prisons due to pot possession, but once we do away with one criminal drug, wont our weakest members just move on to the next illicit substance.

The real problem is in our society for creating the market for drugs, for these problems that are just South of our border are precipitated by our hunger for this need to get “high”, but I doubt that pot is the root source of the violence; although, if I were a drug user with a conscience, a phrase that might be an oxymoron, I would feel the guilt from creating the impetus for such mayhem.

I have argued that all drugs should be legal with the caveat that the user be a registered drug user with all the resulting acrimony that would follow such a distinction. This is a good way to determine if someone is a drug user; because, the drug user will recoil at such an idea that places “undue” hardship upon the casual addict. Non-drug users will see the advantages of such a system. Careers, licensing, insurance, health care and many other aspects of life would affected; howver, perhaps those areas should be affected for the drug user, for they are committing crimes against all of society by functioning in their altered state.

The criminal activity would be negligible and that would be a blessing; however, more importantly, being classified as an addict would place you in the lowest segment of society and the title would have a stigma attached to it rather than a “forbidden fruit” enticement, at least for young people within a period of time.

Obviously, I don’t have the answers; yet, the problem is an enigma that will need to be addressed eventually. Thanks for your input.

PS I knew a heroin user once, a former Marine fighter pilot from WWII who suffered back injuries or wounds during the war. He said the legal pain medications of that era, the 60’s, couldn’t begin to relieve the pain. He managed the drug well and functioned with no visible signs of addiction that I could detect. I’d always imagined the heroin user as a junkie in a back alley of large cities: this man was a respected rancher who shared that secret of his life with me. I have resisted telling his story because of the negative connotations attached to the drug. It seems as remarkable now as it did back then, a truly bizarre experience for me.

I personally can’t stand the altered state of even light pain killers while suffering from fairly severe injuries: he on the other hand, could inject heroin and carry on a conversation as if it was perfectly natural.

Have you heard of such a case or is it not that unusual? I have kept this bottled up inside for over 40 years, because of respect for the man and his pain.

@Real American Patriot:

Democrat Mark Dayton is ahead by less than 1%……It will be good to see a Democrat finally taking over that office again.

Heh, good luck with that. 🙄

In historic push, Minnesota Republicans grab control of state House, Senate

“They brought us home a victory,” Senjem said. “More than that, they brought us home the majority in the Senate.” It was a prediction even Republican boosters did not dare make prior to Tuesday’s vote. They have never held the majority since the state went to partisan elections in the early 1970s.

Yet after Democrats started the day with a 46-21 veto-proof supermajority, they ended it down 31 seats to 36.

~~~~

Just as stunning, Republicans took over control of the Minnesota House, 73-61. They began the day in the minority, with their heads barely above water, lagging DFLers 84-47.

Details relating to California’s effective ratification of the Kyoto Treaty:

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20101103-710843.html

Background: In the past, California passed a measure to strongly limit greenhouse gas emissions, effectively ratifying the Kyoto Treaty and even going beyond it. Details described below. There was a measure on the ballot (Proposition 23) to suspend this law, but suspension was widely rejected by the voters, again reaffirming the strong support of California voters for green energy legislation, despite the threats of economic calamity.

The measure, called Proposition 23, was rejected by 61.4% of the voters, compared to 38.6% who voted in favor, after 95% of election precincts reported, according to the California Secretary of State’s office.

Proposition 23, backed by oil refiners Valero Corp. (VLO) and Tesoro Corp. (TSO), both of San Antonio, Texas, and other heavy industry, would suspend California’s 2006 climate law until the state’s unemployment rate–currently above 12%–drops to 5.5% and stays there for at least a year.

Supporters of the climate law, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, environmental groups, health groups including the American Lung Association, some Hollywood celebrities and investors in clean-technology companies campaigned against Proposition 23, saying the emission-reduction policy is a necessary step in fighting climate change and a key driver of the state’s growing renewable-energy and clean-technology industries. California officials see the law as a model for federal climate legislation, which has stalled in Congress. The Nov. 2 referendum on the climate law, known as AB 32, is being closely watched around the U.S. and the world, as an indication of public support for policies aimed at fighting climate change.

The climate law requires the state’s greenhouse gas emissions to be cut to 1990 levels by 2020. The state Air Resources Board released proposed cap-and-trade rules on Friday, with plans to adopt final rules by the end of the year. The agency earlier established regulations that require utilities to use solar, wind or other renewable power for one-third of the electricity they sell by 2020, as well as rules that require a 10% reduction in the carbon content of transportation fuels by 2020.

As I’ve noted, California is doing a service to the rest of the nation by actually answering the question of whether CO2 control legislation will create an economic disaster or an economic boom. You can argue an issue endlessly, but there’s no substitute for actual data.

@Skook: I’ll get back to you on the interesting and important question of chronic drug use in otherwise functioning people later today.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Here’s probably the best idea I’m come across of what the GOP ought to do to fix what it considers most objectional about Obamacare:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704462704575590344022699132.html

Basically, the idea is to allow younger, healthier people to satisfy their “mandate” by buying relatively inexpensive, high-deductible, HSA-type insurance policies. This would produce a number of highly desirable effects, explained in the article.

As a strong supporter of Obamacare (but as one who always understood that it would require major modifications, along the way), I think that this is one very good, conservative idea that I could strongly support.

Ideas such as this are both pragmatic and constructive.

@nan: Opareza’s ghost won comfortably (58 – 36), so it’s not as if the Dems stole a seat from the GOP. California actually has a pretty clean election history; it’s not some sort of Cook County thing. There is the odd dirty trick (by both parties), but it’s been pretty small time, non-substantive stuff.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

@Aye: I dunno. Story just said an unidentified poll inspector stole 75 ballots and a cell phone. Didn’t say who or why. It was in SF, where most of the stolen ballots would have presumably been for Dems.

Like many people, I was following the Real Clear Politics poll averages, particularly for the Senate races. They categorized some races as toss ups. Here’s how they ended up, with the left hand column numbers being the final poll average margin and the right hand column numbers being the actual vote outcomes:

PA Toomey (R) + 4.5% + 2%
CA Boxer (D) +5 +10
CO Bennett (D) – (minus) 3 + 5
IL Kirk (R) +3.3 +2.3
NV Reid (D) – (minus) 2.7 + 5.6
WA Murray (D) + 0.3 close to tie
WV Manchin (D) +4.5 +10.1

Now, it was a HUGE night for the GOP, no mistaking, but it seems as if the Dems in the close races exceeded expectations, capturing at least 4 of the 7 tossups and maybe 5 out of 7, depending on if Murray holds on in WA. Also, the margins between what the polls predicted and how the Dems did shows that the polls underestimated the actual Dem performance, in key races. Exit polls I saw confirmed that the 18-29 demographic was still strongly skewed to the Dems, and I wonder if at least some of the above differences could be owing to an undercount of mobile phones (not sampled by most pollsters)?

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

CARY: hi, what about JoN stewart saying” REPUBLICAN can go to the back of the car”
who’s he only a tv show humorist; now the REPUBLICANS are driving the car;
JUST so he get it. bye
did he recover his sanity?

@Missy,

This is not like the Franken & Coleman election here where at the end of the count the two parties were around 700 votes apart. As of tonight the numbers for Dayton & Emmer are 9,000 votes apart. I doubt a turn around will happen in a recount that is that far apart.

Of course you recall the Franken & Coleman recount. That’s the recount that afterwards the righties came up with this SPEW… 341 Illegal votes were cast by Felons that did not have the right to vote. What bunch of right wing BS that turned out to be! 6 is the number of people were indicted for voter fraud.