A rundown of how I am intending to vote, with links.
President: Hillary Clinton. Trump is the worst major party presidential candidate of my lifetime, by far. I voted for Ted Cruz in the primary in the hopes that he could take some delegates from Trump, because he was the most likely not-Trump to win any delegates; I vote for Hillary Clinton for the same reason.
Senate: Kamala Harris. I voted against her for AG in 2010 and still have problems with her sense of legal ethics, AND that doesn’t apply to a legislative job in the same way that it does to a practicing-law job, AND Loretta Sanchez’ campaign has been dreadful.
State Senate: Scott Weiner. He’s way more likely to push to enable large-scale housing development, and that’s the single most important issue in local politics.
Prop. 51: No. (https://reboundinanutshell.wordpress.com/2016/07/30/no-on-51/)
Prop. 52: No. (https://reboundinanutshell.wordpress.com/2016/08/12/no-on-52/)
Prop. 53: No. (https://reboundinanutshell.wordpress.com/2016/08/17/no-on-53/)
Prop. 54: Yes, reluctantly. (https://reboundinanutshell.wordpress.com/2016/08/25/yes-on-54/)
Prop. 55: Yes. (https://reboundinanutshell.wordpress.com/2016/09/06/unsure-and-maybe-on-prop-55/)
Prop. 56: Yes. (https://reboundinanutshell.wordpress.com/2016/09/18/yes-on-56/)
Prop. 57: Yes, enthusiastically. (https://reboundinanutshell.wordpress.com/2016/11/04/yes-on-57/)
Prop. 58: Yes. (https://reboundinanutshell.wordpress.com/2016/10/04/yes-on-58/)
Prop. 59: No. (https://reboundinanutshell.wordpress.com/2016/09/06/no-on-59/)
Prop. 60: No. (https://reboundinanutshell.wordpress.com/2016/10/04/no-no-no-hell-no-on-60/). It’s one of the worst initiatives I’ve ever voted on.
Prop. 61: No. (https://reboundinanutshell.wordpress.com/2016/11/02/probably-no-on-61/)
Prop. 62: Yes. (https://reboundinanutshell.wordpress.com/2016/09/18/yes-on-62/)
Prop. 63: No. (https://reboundinanutshell.wordpress.com/2016/11/02/no-on-63/)
Prop 64: Yes. I never got around to writing this up. It’s not perfect, but it’s a workable compromise, and I’ve been in favor of legalization since I was a teenager.
Prop. 65: No. (https://reboundinanutshell.wordpress.com/2016/11/02/yes-on-67-no-on-65/)
Prop. 66: Oh, Hell No. (https://reboundinanutshell.wordpress.com/2016/09/18/no-on-66/)
Prop. 67: Yes. (https://reboundinanutshell.wordpress.com/2016/11/02/yes-on-67-no-on-65/)
—San Francisco Propositions—-
RR: yes. If we don’t take care of BART’s maintenance backlog, we’re all hosed.
According to http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_29631091/democrats-conflicted-trump-candidacy-reaches-tipping-point, many bay area Democrats are hoping for Donald Trump to win the Republican primary because they think he’ll be easy to beat.
I *hope* they’re right, but I strongly suspect they are wrong.
I mean, Mr. Trump won’t win in California; I think that’s clear.
But in Ohio? Virginia? Florida? Pennsylvania?
I think it can be done.
Mr. Trump is tapping into a real, deep anger. The white lower middle class has experienced more than a generation of economic decline and (rightly) believes its concerns are ignored by both political parties. Mr. Trump is playing to and enflaming their anger and hoping to ride the anger to power. And, sadly, Sen. Clinton is a *terrible* foil for that anger – not only is she the establishment’s choice, her husband was one of the people who *orchestrated* the Democratic party’s move away from advocating for the interests of the working class and towards advocating for the interests of the financier and rentier classes.
Which is to say: I think Mr. Trump has a better chance of winning a general election than most people give him credit for, and so the people quoted in the article strike me as being crazy people playing with fire.
Fire is fun to play with, to be sure. But exercise some care!
The word today is that Ben Carson is stepping out of the Presidential race and is endorsing Donald Trump.
I never understood Dr. Carson’s campaign. I watched him in the debates, before my life fell apart again in December, and it always seemed like he didn’t belong there – that he was a smart man who was totally out of his depth because he was trying to operate outside his domain.
There’s a kind of arrogance really bright people are often subject to, where they assume that because (a) they’re really smart and capable and (b) they’re really good at domain [x], they must also be really good at domain [y], which they care about but have no experience or knowledge in.
Dr. Carson seemed to be suffering from that; as demonstrated in the debates, his policy ideas and pronouncements were usually “not even wrong”, but he was very, very confident in them.
So I’m not sad to see him go; he was not contributing much of substance. I am surprised to see him endorse Mr. Trump, and I’m not sure it matters; I don’t think endorsements mean much in most years, and less in this one.
But I continue to find it odd how much success he *was* having in the race. What were the people who were voting for him seeing that I wasn’t, and how were they not seeing what I was?