A poster on the Davis Wiki posted a letter from Davis Ace owner Jennifer Anderson urging their employees to vote for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.
The letter dated October 27, 2012 reads, “I am joining other business owners around the nation in asking employees to vote for Romney & Ryan.”
She continues, “This is a first for me. It is your choice who you vote for, but I want to share with you my concerns and how I feel it will impact our company.”
While she is clear that it is the individual’s choice, Ms. Anderson does add, “it will impact each employee.”
While Jennifer Anderson argues that this is a first for her, the Vanguard actually began receiving complaints about Jennifer Anderson and Davis Ace in the 2010 elections.
At that time, the employee was reluctant to come forward, fearing identification and retribution. The Vanguard forwarded the complaints and the matter to the Davis Downtown Business Association.
At that time, the individual complained that Davis Ace, on at least two occasions, distributed political propaganda along with employees’ paychecks. The political information, as well as the employer’s opinions about various political issues, and paychecks were being handed out together.
The paycheck is grabbed, then the political propaganda, and then they were both given to the employee together.
The individual however indicated that they were not physically attached together – i.e. not stapled or clipped – nor were they enclosed in the envelope containing the paycheck.
While Ms. Anderson suggests that this was a first for her in the October 27, 2012 letter, the employee at that time indicated that two incidences preceded the upcoming election, and they continued with several points, arguments and suggestions made by the employer both times, within the body of the political propaganda.
On June 8, 2012 they wrote employees: “We are supporting fiscally conservative candidates. We are deeply concerned with the fiscal state of Davis, Yolo County, California and the Federal budget. No balanced budget, deficit spending. More laws make it difficult to comply and will add expense to the business. More expenses equals a smaller bottom line profit. More programs, mean more taxes, means a smaller take home paycheck. It is that simple. We urge you to ask financial questions. We believe in individual responsibility and accountability.”
September 2, 2012, about Repeal Obamacare, was an opinion editorial: “I am concerned that with continuing soft sales – we will reduce our payroll. And if healthcare becomes too expensive – we will stop offering health care. I certainly will not be re-investing because there will not be the money to do so – and if taxes increase – all of us will suffer with less money to spend – which will continue to spiral downward.”
A source indicated that Davis Act has an “Employee Pledge,” which they claim for the success of the company all must abide by.
The first rule (pledge) is: “I pledge to read all company bulletins, newsletters and notices that are either posted on bulletin boards or included with my paycheck, since they are for the best interests to all employees.”
Ascertaining the legality of these actions is somewhat tricky, but there are at least two applicable sections of the CA Elections Code.
Section 8540: (a) Every person who makes use of or threatens to make use of any force, violence, or tactic of coercion or intimidation, to induce or compel any other person to vote or refrain from voting at any election or to vote or refrain from voting for any particular person or measure at any election, or because any person voted or refrained from voting at any election or voted or refrained from voting for any particular person or measure at any election is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months or two or three years.
Section 8542: Every employer, whether a corporation or natural person, or any other person who employs, is guilty of a misdemeanor if, in paying his or her employees the salary or wages due them, encloses their pay in pay envelopes upon which or in which there is written or printed the name of any candidate or any political mottoes, devices, or arguments containing threats, express or implied, intended or calculated to influence the political opinions or actions of the employees.
In the October 27, 2012 letter she argues that “Obamacare will change our business and our benefits to our employees.” She adds, “We have a huge number of unemployed and underemployed people in the U.S… This affects everyone’s lives.”
She argued, “This affects us because I won’t hire more people” as she sees Obamacare costing their business and that taxations will cost them more.
“While all of these may not affect you – they do affect us and they affect our family and our company,” she wrote.
She concludes the letter: “I am not perfect. I have put my heart and soul into this company on behalf of our family, and for the benefit of our employees and all of our families.”
She adds, “I don’t want to be told ‘I did not build’ this company. I have earned what I have done. Yes, I did ‘get the job’ through our family, however, I could have destroyed this company with poor management – but I haven’t. Together, with our team, we have helped it grow and prosper and contribute back to this community.”
“I want our President to help us do that for our country. Please vote for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan on November 6. The outcome will affect our business. The choice is yours.”
There is nothing wrong with the letter from a legal point of view, unlike perhaps distributing propaganda with a paycheck. Nevertheless, in this community, it does not seem like a good business move.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
If we were in Nevada or Ohio this might matter. Here in California, where Obama will win by 10 or 20 points, its just a cravenly emotional cry in the night. I have friends that worked for Bush but we never get too worked up about our political differences. Although she did offer to put a Romney lawn sign in front of the house for me my friend and I understand that since California is not in play there is no reason to get worked up about it on a local level. The notion that the owner of one of the oldest businesses in town, a business that is protected by barriers to entry, in a town that has an almost recession proof public university, would engage in this sort of politics is just weird.
My bottom-line on this is that reasonable people can agree to disagree reasonably.
I absolutely agree Matt – but does putting pressure on your employees given your unequal power relationship meet that standard. To follow Mr. Toad’s point California is not going to decide the vote and her few employees are not going to change anything, so why even give the appearance of crossing those ethical lines for something that really doesn’t matter?
Mrs. Anderson has nothing to worry about because Obama isn’t going to win, not because it’s California. She knows that an Obama win would’ve adversely affected her business and employees so sh’es correct in her views. I say good job Mrs. Anderson and you will get more of my business.
This is no different than the kind of anti-union indoctrination that Wal-Mart uses. If we are going to go back to the Laissez Faire capitalism that allows this why keep Wal-Mart out? I say bring in Home Depot and Rusty will be free to subsidize the higher prices that support bullying by the bosses at Davis Ace if he chooses.
You all have no problem with unions telling their members how to vote, why can’t businesses also give their recomendations?
Unions are a relationship among equals, business owners and managers have a power asymmetry.
If a business owner knows that higher taxes and Obamacare are going to cause them to have to layoff workers, cut them to part time or lower pay I say informing the work force is a good thing for the employees.
Another thing, would we be hearing about this if Mrs. Anderson had advocated for Obama? I think we all know the answer to that one.
You’d be the one complaining.
Matt wrote;
> My bottom-line on this is that reasonable
> people can agree to disagree reasonably.
Then David wrote:
> I absolutely agree Matt – but does putting pressure
> on your employees given your unequal power relationship
> meet that standard.
Other than David’s inflammatory headline that the Davis ACE “pushes” employees to vote for Romney is there any evidence that the people from ACE are using their power as an employer to “push” or “put pressure” on people to vote for Romney any more that the person that sent me the “voter guide” I got in the mail yesterday is “pushing” me to vote for Obama?
As I’ve mentioned before I’m not a fan of the Davis ACE and I’m not voting for Romney, but I think it is sleazy to make accusations that they are actually pressuring people to vote one way (like making employees show their completed absentee ballot before they get paid) if there is no evidence.
P.S. David will find out that “Unions are NOT a relationship among equals” if he wears a Romney for President/Yes on 32 T Shirt to a union hall and tells them that he has the right to express his opinion since they are all equals (he probably will not have time to say anything before the guys start to beat the crap out of him)…
She is free to do as she pleases but you need to wonder why she would inject politics into her business when it won’t make any difference to how California casts its electoral votes.
I think David articulated it perfectly: “… business owners and managers have a power asymmetry.” The hierarchy is absolute and understood by all. These are not peers having a conversation. It is a subliminal threat.
I couldn’t care less who she thinks will be the better president, but this action says a great deal about the (lack of) respect she has for her employees. I have a great many people who work under me but under no circumstances would I interject my personal beliefs into our professional relationship. Like it or not, this puts employees in an uncomfortable place and poisons the working relationship. A long-time business owner should have known better.
I read about this sort of thing recently happening with Koch brothers businesses. Legal but sleazy. Now, on a smaller scale, it’s happening here. As I said, I don’t care about her politics, but I do care about how businesses treat their employees. There are alternatives like Hibbert and OSH where employees seem to be held in higher regard and respect.
The Koch brothers are here too, spending $11 million to defeat 30 and pass 32.
Nice living in a plutocracy, isn’t it?
[i]Unions are a relationship among equals[/i]
That is a knee-slapper! Unions are a power hierarchy like no other.
I don’t have a problem with the letter to employees from Ms. Anderson. If Obama wins, at least she can tell the employees she warned them of the consequences. There is nothing in her communication that is threatening or vitriolic. The information she provided is factual.
It is about time that private business owners started countering the brain-washing coming from government-funded enterprise.
I suspect that Jennifer Anderson doesn’t want to provide health care for her employees.
Shane wrote:
> I couldn’t care less who she thinks will be the
> better president, but this action says a great
> deal about the (lack of) respect she has for
> her employees.
I don’t care who anyone thinks will be a better president, but I find it strange that people on the left don’t seem to care when business owners on the left share their political opinions but freak out if anyone on the right speaks their mind. I bet I see 10 times more left leaning signs, t-shirts and stickers year after year and I just don’t care. I don’t care if the Co-Op tells employees to vote for Prop. 37 (I know they took the signs down) or if Monsanto tells employees to vote against Prop 37 just like I don’t care if a crazy Republican puts a “War is the Answer” sign in his yard as a protest to the dozens of “War is not the Answer” signs all over town.
Ryan: I’m pretty sure Davis Ace provides health insurance.
[i]Nice living in a [b]plutocracy[/b], isn’t it?[/i]
I think somebody needs to do a little Wikipedia work.
Then how does she think Davis Ace employees are going to be adversely affected by an Obama re-election?
Jennifer was extremely rude to me at a public Chamber event years ago. She didn’t know me. I was a nobody to her and she made that very clear to me. I have had difficulty shopping at Davis Ace ever since. I am not surprised that she would promote her political choices to her employees in such an official manner, as if it would matter.
[i]Then how does she think Davis Ace employees are going to be adversely affected by an Obama re-election?[/i]
Higher taxes on business and business owners.
Obamacare impacts.
[i]I don’t care who anyone thinks will be a better president, but I find it strange that people on the left don’t seem to care when business owners on the left share their political opinions but freak out if anyone on the right speaks their mind.[/i]
I agree with SouthofDavis here. I think if Ms. Anderson had done exactly the same but recommended Obama, the Vanguard would not have have posted any article.
The letter is posted on Davis Patch. Her primary beef is Obamacare. She doesn’t want to provide healthcare to her employees and, if Obamacare is implemented, she will have to limit the salaries and benefits given to employees. “I wish healthcare had nothing to do with our business,” she writes.
I used to be the aircraft mechanic and FAA-Authorized Inspector for the work on her Dad’s Cessna Turbo 210 aircraft, before I got buried in UCD work and classes. You’ll never meet a nicer guy, and he cared alot about the employees at Davis Lumber. You can tell a lot about the kids by whome their parents are.
I understand Jennifer’s frustrations. My view it that President Obama should have poured all of that bank bailout money into small business and family housholds directly, not giving it away to the Wall Street friends of Tim Geithner. All of the small businesses I know in Davis have been sucking air for 5 years. It’s terrible, and still not measurably better.
However, I dont think I would hand out political literature when I give out the paychecks. I would write a letter to the Editor, post on the Vanguard, and leave copies in the break room for employees, if they wished, to pick up and read. I think her heart is in the right place, wanting to share her concerns with others, but the process was a bit awkward.
This should blow over, today.
[i]”While Ms. Anderson suggests that this was a first for her in the October 27, 2012 letter, the employee at that time indicated that two [b]incidences[/b] preceded the upcoming election …”[/i]
Incidents?
Perhaps, if Measure E passes, the DJUSD should offer bonehead English courses for adults in Davis. Then again, considering that our school district is run by boneheads who could not construct a ballot question without errors ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/dunning/bob-dunning-will-bad-grammar-kill-education-measure/[/url]), maybe grammar in Davis needs to be taught by someone who is not on the DJUSD payroll.
In case Measure E fails here is the distinction I learned in the second grade between ‘incidents’ and an ‘incidence’: the former are “individual events;” the latter is the rate at which something occurs.
[i]”Due to increasing consumption of sugar, the [b]incidence[/b] of diabetes in the United States is growing.”[/i]
[img]http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/aag/images/2011/new-cases-diabetes-adults-chart.gif[/img]
[i]”I think if Ms. Anderson had done exactly the same but recommended Obama, the Vanguard would not have have posted any article.”[/i]
Agreed. Moreover, David would have said such an endorsement of his prefered candidate showed she was enlightened.
To me this is all a question of free speech. No one who works for Davis Ace has to vote one way or another.
And as a number of people have noted above, it is all meaningless in our state: California would be won by Obama even if every person in Davis voted for Mr. Romney.
Oh …. along these lines: Nate Silver’s latest projection has Obama up quite a bit higher than was the case just yesterday. His EC projection is now 313 to 225 in favor of Mr. Obama. That is an insurmountable lead. Yet a week and a half after the first presidential debate, 538’s projection had the EC race quite close. I think at one point Obama was down to about 280 EC votes. Romney did not lead. But it was looking close. Since then, everything seems to have moved (slightly) in favor the the president.
“… to have moved (slightly) in favor [s]the[/s] [b]of[/b] the president.”
Fixed.
Rich: Why the fixation over Nate Silver’s projections? He is a bit of an outlier. Count me as someone that is attracted to the rebel against the pundits, but in this case, Silver seems to be playing the tired old liberal media game.
[quote]The first presidential election results are in – and it’s a tie.
President Barack Obama and his Republican rival, Mitt Romney, each received five votes in Dixville Notch, New Hampshire.
The town in the state’s northeast corner has opened its polls shortly after midnight each election day since 1960 – but today’s tie was the first in its history.
The result was unexpected, said town clerk Dick Erwin. The town has two registered Democrats, three Republicans and five independents.
“Considering the way things are polling around the country, we may have been the first tie of the day,” said town clerk Dick Erwin, noting the national polls showing a virtual dead heat in the race. “Keep your eyes on the news reports, because it’s going to be a wild ride.”
[/quote]
JB: [i]Why the fixation over Nate Silver’s projections? He is a bit of an outlier.[/i]
He’s had an impressive record ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Silver#2008_U.S._elections[/url]) calling a number of races in recent years.
However, we’ll see if his predictions hold by this time tomorrow.
Jeff: [i]”Rich: Why the fixation over Nate Silver’s projections? He is a bit of an outlier. Count me as someone that is attracted to the rebel against the pundits, but in this case, Silver seems to be playing the tired old liberal media game.”[/i]
Three reasons, Jeff:
[b]1. Nate Silver is brilliant.[/b] I don’t know him well, but I have spent some time with him (back when he and I were both involved in sabermetrics). There is not a single other psephologist I have ever read whose intellect compares with Nate’s.
[b]2. His statistical methodology is scientific, not political.[/b] It’s true that he is a liberal. But he is first a statistician/ mathematician/psephologist. He never lets his politics affect his math. When he wrote scientifically about baseball, his conclusions and methodology were not biased by his love for the Detroit Tigers. It is the same when he writes scientifically about election polling.
[b]3. His track record.[/b] I don’t think there is another analyst working today who has anywhere near as good a record predicting election outcomes. The others, even the good ones, may get lucky once in a while. But they lack the math skills that Nate employs.
“I agree with SouthofDavis here. I think if Ms. Anderson had done exactly the same but recommended Obama, the Vanguard would not have have posted any article.”
May not have, but someone else would have had they caught wind of it.
Ha! Second time I’ve seen the word ‘psephology’ in a day! At least he’s not using phrenology.
Rifkin:
On incidences – I don’t need an English lesson. I think if you guys saw how my writing goes in between changing diapers, getting milk to babies, and yelling at kids to get ready for school – you might be amazed as to how coherent these pieces actually do come out most of the time. I always joke with my wife as to whether Woodward and Bernstein interrupted their meetings with Deep Throat to change a diaper.
Shame on Jennifer A for employing all those people, paying for their health insurance and then having the nerve to tell them how an election could affect their job and/or healthcare. Nobody is forcing anyone to work or shop at Ace, but that’s where i’ll keep buying my stuff. Yea for free speech!
Just another non-issue. Unions are a relationship among equals? That type of talk is so far from the realm of reality that it has to be trolling.
[i]”On incidences – I don’t need an English lesson.”[/i]
To err is human. But to not correct yourself once you screw up is pernicious.
What I don’t understand is why you don’t edit your main story [i]ex post facto[/i] and add a note at the bottom which explains that an error was corrected in the copy?
“Unions are a relationship among equals, business owners and managers have a power asymmetry.”
I could not disagree more.
Years ago I worked for a private company that distributed a letter to all their employees, encouraging a vote for the Republican candidate for president. It was like the company president left a wet turd sitting in one of the empty cubicles and everyone had to put up with the smell for a few days. No one was fired and no one was harmed and I doubt it changed anyone’s mind about the election.
Now as a government employee I am forced to either join SEIU or pay them the equivalent in dues. My money is used to support candidates I do not support, issues I disagree with, and bargain “for me” in ways I consider to be eventually economically suicidal to both employees and the state. Despite this, everything from the union is written in a way that assumes “of course you agree with us”. Were I to make an issue of my views around an SEIU faithful, I am sure I would be ridiculed and derided. At my old company with the Republican management, just a few days of a foul odor.
The Davis ACE letter was a bad idea because 1) It was poorly written and emotional and 2) In a highly liberal town, its leaking out will cause some people not to shop their, thus hurting economically both the owners and the employees. More or less than if Obamacare is implemented? Who knows?
However, I’ll support their right to send the letter, and also support my right to say “big deal about nothing”. No employees were harmed, and unless they want to make a big deal of their politics at work, none will be harmed.
Every employee except one in the company I manage is liberal or significantly left of center. A couple of employees claim the independent label, but they are definitely left of center. I am strongly fiscally conservative and socially moderate (maybe a bit right of center on some social issues).
I would never ever offer advice for how employees should vote unless asked directly. Even then I would be careful.
There is one exception… if any election could directly affect their job, pay or benefits; I would feel obligated to explain. I might even suggest a voting direction as a way to protect themselves from harm.
I’m sure there is a whole lot of pressure from higher-ups in the education establishment for employees to vote for Obama, Measure E and Prop-30. So, why are Ms. Anderson’s actions worthy of scorn when similar actions from the managers of public-sector business are celebrated?
Here is what Yudof said on Prop. 30:
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/28566
Note in particular:
“I am writing to encourage all members of the University of California community — students, faculty, staff and alumni — to exercise your right to vote.”
“Let me be clear that it is neither my official place, nor my personal predilection, to suggest how others should vote. You need to look at the facts and make your own informed decisions. In that vein, please allow me to point you to a good starting place: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/28244.”
Yes, in the letter he highlights the importance of Prop. 30 for the UC. But there is an important difference between drawing attention, as Yudof did, and between asking employees to vote a certain way, as Jennifer Anderson did.
David wrote:
> On incidences – I don’t need an English lesson.
> I think if you guys saw how my writing goes in
> between changing diapers, getting milk to babies,
> and yelling at kids to get ready for school –
> you might be amazed as to how coherent these
> pieces actually do come out most of the time.
I may not agree with David all the time, but I really do appreciate all the work it takes to get so many posts out.
If it is not real hard with the software David uses, I agree with Rich that it would be nice to edit the posts as typos are noted.
P.S. If you do edit this post I’m pretty sure you meant to write:
“Davis ACE has an “Employee Pledge” rather than Davis Act has an “Employee Pledge”
If Obama wins, then Nate Silver will again be the golden child and polling will retain its image as a reliable and scientific instrument of politics.
However, if Romney wins there will be hell to pay for the pollsters, and they may never recover credibility.
Regardless who wins, with their behavior this election, the liberal media is now firmly recognized as enemy number one for conservatives.
“[i]Regardless who wins, with their behavior this election, the liberal media is now firmly recognized as enemy number one for conservatives.[/i]”
Conservative talking heads have been whining about the media for years, so this will be nothing new. Too bad they can’t just talk about the issues rather than blaming someone else for their own shortcomings.
I have no issue with a business leader speaking out about their political views, and generally don’t consider those views when I decide where to spend my money. What I don’t understand is why any business leader would choose to alienate a major portion of their own workforce by campaigning at work, especially when it is done in close connection with the employee’s paycheck. That simply is a bad management decision regardless of their political persuasion.
[i]Conservative talking heads have been whining about the media for years[/i]
Apparently the liberal press is also getting into that game.
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/06/us/politics/on-cable-news-networks-a-battle-of-bitterness.html?pagewanted=all[/url]
[quote]Regardless who wins, with their behavior this election, the liberal media is now firmly recognized as enemy number one for conservatives. [/quote]
Only because Mitch McConnell won’t need to make Job 1 ensuring that Obama doesn’t win a third term.
I get a kick out of all the “liberal media” stuff. With the likes of Fox “News,” and Rush, Beck, Hannity, et all spewing right-wing venom that gets lapped up unquestioned by a large segment of the population, where’s all this vaunted liberal media, anyway?
.
Jeff: [i]”If Obama wins, then Nate Silver will again be the golden child and polling will retain its image as a reliable and scientific instrument of politics.”[/i]
If Nate Silver, yet again, is fairly accurate with his projection, I hope you will man up and apologize for your claim that his analysis is all based on ‘liberal bias.’
Nate has modified his model somewhat over time. But his calls, each time he has made them, have been more accurate (very near perfect in 2008) than any single pollster, like the conservative Rasmussen, or the liberal Zogby, or any of the media-owned polls, or any of the political scientists who make public projections.
In today’s LA Times the conservative pundit Jonah Goldberg had a highly critical piece about Nate Silver. He essentially says Nate is a fraud and that no one can know what will happen. Anticipating that Goldberg would be called anti-science for this point of view, he says that what Silver does is not science, that it is gobbledygook.
But Silver does use a scientific method. And he has figured out how to reduce the statistical noise as much as possible using math. So I think it is fair to call the rejection of Silver’s analysis by conservatives yet another example of their rejection of science.
The party which pretends that earth is 10,000 years old, that species do not evolve, that humans burning carbon-based fuels does not add carbon to the atmosphere, that carbon is not building up in our atmosphere, that the planet is not getting hotter, that there are no serious consequences from global warming, and so on, can now add a rejection of mathematics to its list of banned subjects because it no longer fits their world view.
The party of Lincoln has become the party of Limbaugh indeed.
[i]”Regardless who wins, with their behavior this election, the liberal media is now firmly recognized as enemy number one for conservatives.”
[/i]
With Obama winning as I write this, it seems conservatives should acknowledge their egregious misreading of the polls and of the mood of the electorate, apologize for their absurd characterizations of Nate Silver and his technique, and recognize that conservatives were their own ‘enemy number one’ in this election cycle.
Rich, Nate Silver is a partisan polling genius. He can take his 90.9% to 9.1% and stick it up his liberal shorts.
It appears that Romney is winning the popular vote at this point. If Obama sneaks by on that, it will not be by much.
[i]” With Obama winning as I write this, it seems conservatives should acknowledge their egregious misreading of the polls and of the mood of the electorate, apologize for their absurd characterizations of Nate Silver and his technique, and recognize that conservatives were their own ‘enemy number one’ in this election cycle.”[/i]
Right Don. No, let me change that to “wrong Don”.
The best you can say is that Obama is still disliked and unsupported by half the country. He has no mandate, and he has not earned any support from the opposition. In fact, he has made things much worse. He is a whiner and a blamer and an actor without true leadership gifts. He was propped up largely by the muscle of the media and entertainment industry. He is an affirmative action President. He should never have been elected and certainly should never have been re-elected based on his resume and record.
It is a fact that political blood was spilled in this election. The Obama campaign never came to the center like Clinton famously did. They doubled down on the character attacks and demonization. Their strategy worked, but at great cost. I am one conservative, and I do not speak for others, but I think I know the mood. And it is boiling anger. A growing intolerance for what is looking more and more like an ideological enemy that has to be completely destroyed to save the country. I didn’t hate Obama before the election, but having seen what he is truly made of, I do hate him now. I suspect the feeling is mutual for others in my position.
The next four years will be a dismal failure for this re-elected President. He won’t be able to heal the wounds he caused keeping and winning his seat of power. The political divide will grow. The fiscal cliff will become reality.
Youth will pay the ultimate price for Obama. I feel sorry for them, but the most valuable life lessons are usually the most painful. So, in the end, it may be the best thing for them that they made this huge mistake re-electing a cool icon rather than a true leader. If they crave struggle, they certainly gave it to themselves in a big way.
And, no… you don’t get to cooperation the way Obama and the Democrats have conducted themselves. If you think that is the way it works, then you too are naive about leadership.
[i]”He can take his 90.9% to 9.1% and stick it up his liberal shorts.”[/i]
You do understand what those percentages mean, don’t you? If so, please explicate. I get the sense that you have never read Nate’s analysis, and thus you have no idea what his percentages signify.
[i]”It appears that Romney is winning the popular vote at this point. If Obama sneaks by on that, it will not be by much.”[/i]
This is probably true. However, keep in mind that the current national popular vote totals don’t include the West Coast states, including California. Obama is going to win California by millions of votes; and he will handily win Oregon and Nevada. So while his total percentage win in the popular vote will be about 1.0% to 1.5% — that is what your bête noire Nate Silver projected — in total numbers, once these numbers come in, it will not be a squeaker.
[i]”He won’t be able to heal the wounds he caused keeping and winning his seat of power.”[/i]
This does not sound so magnanimous in defeat.
Jeff, if there’s any rationality or sincerity behind those words, it’s currently lost in the overpowering odor of sour grapes.
.
Romney, by contrast, did a classy job of conceding.
.
There is a very interesting early result on Proposition 34 (to end the death penalty). It is losing 44.0% to 56.0% with 19.1% of the state’s precincts having reported.
Just a couple of days ago, the Field Poll said that Prop 34 was winning by 7%, 45% to 38% ([url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanne-woodford/prop-34-death-penalty_b_2067617.html[/url]).
Going from winning by 7% to losing by 12% is far from the margin of error in a scientific poll. That suggests one of two things*: either the Field Poll has poor methodology in its polling methods; or the early results are not reflective of our state as a whole. For the latter to be true, the early returns would have to exclude the more socially liberal areas of the state (San Francisco, western L.A. County, and perhaps Sacramento). If that is not the case, then the Field Poll needs to be discounted as a reliable poll until it changes its methodology.
——————————-
*I don’t think the idea that all of the late deciders broke against Prop 34 is credible. They never break all one way or the other. Those undecideds on propositions often will leave those votes blank.
LA County and SF have barely posted yet.
Rich: [i]You do understand what those percentages mean, don’t you? [/i]
I do.
But they are/were useless as an election benchmark unless the goal is one-sided hype.
[i]The party of Lincoln has become the party of Limbaugh indeed.[/i]
Bullcrap. No more than the Party of Kennedy turns to Bill Maher. Do you really want to make that case? I think it is a lazy partisan rhetorical shot and it is beneath your significant intellect to fall for this left media trick to connect the GOP to any political satirist entertainer. Let’s just stick to the words and behaviors of the real political leaders. For example, replay Biden’s debate behavior for a taste of what the Democrat Party has become.
[i]Jeff, if there’s any rationality or sincerity behind those words, it’s currently lost in the overpowering odor of sour grapes.[/i]
Jim Frame: Sure I am disappointed, but I have been consistent in what I wrote. I previously have said that I thought an Obama win would result in more partisanship, gridlock and lack of policy accomplishment. The only difference is that the election helped me better get to know the real Obama and Biden. Hate is too strong a word, and I regret using it. It was a word that was probably motivated by my disappointment. I should have written that I have developed a very strong dislike for both men that did not exist before the election.
There was bad blood between the Obama Administration and the GOP. The election has increased it. I don’t think Obama can overcome this. First, I don’t think he has the skills. Second, I don’t think even Bill Clinton could mend these broken fences. We elected a lame duck.
source ([url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/donald-trump-election-revolution_n_2085864.html[/url])
[quote]Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy![/quote]
[i]There is a very interesting early result on Proposition 34 (to end the death penalty). It is losing 44.0% to 56.0% with 19.1% of the state’s precincts having reported. [/i]
[i]LA County and SF have barely posted yet. [/i]
Prop 34 looks destined to fail. SF is reporting 100% and LA county is reporting 34% and the statewide total is 54 – 46.
I predict no concessions or retractions from the bigoted banker or the village idiot !
[b]Rich:[/b] You do understand what those percentages mean, don’t you?
[b]Jeff: [/b]I do. But they are/were useless as an election benchmark unless the goal is one-sided hype.
Apparently, you [i]don’t know[/i] what Nate meant when he calculated the odds that Obama would win were 90.9%.
Nate’s model showed Obama winning every single state he won, and it showed Romney winning every other state, and it showed Florida as a true toss-up. But Nate’s model was not 100% certain that Obama would win. The model was 90.9% sure. Your comment implies you think Nate was saying that Obama would win 90.9% of the vote.
In his last pre-election analysis, Nate used a poker analogy, drawing to an inside straight. (Nate was at one time a winning professional poker player.) The chances for Romney to win, based on Nate’s model, were roughly equal to a poker player, playing heads up in Texas Hold Em, to hit an inside straight on the river card when he is say, up against a player who has a big pair.
Obama: [b]A-spades; 10-diamonds[/b]
Romney: [b]5-clubs; 6 hearts[/b]
Board: [b]A-diamonds; 7-spades; 3-spades; K-clubs[b]
At that point, there is one card to come, the river card. Obama has a pair of Aces; Romney needs a 4 to make a 3-4-5-6-7 straight. Nate Silver would not say there is a 100% certainty Obama will win. Romney still had 4 outs. There are 44 more cards in the deck. So Romney had a 4 in 44 (or 9.1%) chance of winning that hand.
As it happens, Romney did not hit a 4 yesterday.
C’mon Jeff (9:09pm rant), an affirmative action president? Why do you spew this kind of rhetoric? I think he was elected by the people not once but twice now.
Rich and South of Davis, David depends upon me to catch most of the things that slip past in between diaper changes etc…i am a volunteer, just as David is, and i often fail to have the time that i would like to have to apply to the proofing all the time…Tuesday was a hectic day and i had a few minutes in the am to race through the articles. I apologize for allowing these errors. I catch most things, believe me, and there are usually quite a number of things to catch. I always try to go through them twice, but was unable to do so that day.
Also, if you are up early in the am, you may not only have read the articles before i get to them, you may also be reading as i am editing – so you would not see changes unless you refresh. Thank you for your input and i have not changed incidences and ACT because they have been discussed in comments. David, let me know if you want them corrected at this time.
Btw, did you guys catch “innocense” on the front page of the [printed] Enterprise 11/3 (Hirschfield article: Defense claims innocense, points to third party)?
Some of the jobs news in the wake of the Obama win…
[quote]Medical supply giant Stryker will cut 1,170 jobs, or five percent of its worldwide workforce, despite the fact that the founder’s grandson was one of the largest contributors to President Obama’s re-election campaign. Medical tech scion Jon Stryker, whose net worth is currently estimated at $1.2 billion, contributed $2 million to the Priorities USA Action super PAC and has given $66,000 in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party. Stryker does not run the company.[/quote]
[quote]The CEO of popular pizza chain Papa John’s says his employees may face reduced hours and he expects his business costs to rise because President Obama’s re-election most likely insures the president’s health care reform law will be implemented in full.[/quote]
[quote]Murray Energy Corporation announced more than 160 layoffs across three subsidiaries this week, becoming perhaps the first company to follow through on threats to make cutbacks in the event of a second President Obama term.[/quote]
And don’t forget those 18,500 Hostess union jobs that will disappear.
The hits just keep coming.
I very much like Charles Payne. He is very intellegent and likeable. He is also 100% correct.
[quote]http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1962902649001/payne-america-a-nation-of-takers-not-makers/?intcmp=obnetwork[/quote]
Oops, wrong tag…
[url]http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1962902649001/payne-america-a-nation-of-takers-not-makers/?intcmp=obnetwork[/url]