Election preference recap

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—-

(https://reboundinanutshell.wordpress.com/2016/11/02/san-francisco-propositions/)

A: yes

B: yes

C: yes

D: no

E: yes

F: no

G: yes

H: no

I: no

J: no

K: yes

L: no

M: no

N: no

O: yes

P: no

Q: no

R: no

S: no

T: yes

U: no

V: no

W: yes

X: no

RR: yes. If we don’t take care of BART’s maintenance backlog, we’re all hosed.

US Senate Debate #1

The first of two televised debates in the CA US Senate “primary” was held on Apr. 26.

The five candidates (of the 30+ on the ballot) were:

Kamala Harris (D, AG)
Loretta Sanchez (D, Congresswoman)
Ron Unz
Duf Sundheim
Tom del Beccaro

It’s on Youtube at https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj7iK6-ntPMAhUK6GMKHd3wBbQQtwIIJDAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D_K8rm88sFDQ&usg=AFQjCNGmKvXF0iDKbgkJV0iYlAE-JkRBWg&sig2=QipUBLlXumCWPgf6Fmwczw&bvm=bv.121658157,d.cGc

Some thoughts.

(a) Rep. Sanchez has been changing Congress for twenty years, she says. But if that’s true (and not just self-serving fluff), given that Congress has been changing *for the worse* for many years, she’s clearly part of the problem and not part of the solution.

That said, she does have a point about how she knows where the swing votes are, and how that’s a benefit.

(b) “who are you most concerned about helping as a Senator?” is a terrible question.

(c) Ron Unz is a Republican who wants to focus on inequality. That’s … unusual.

(d) Duf Sundheim characterizes the rich:poor divide as being equivalent to the free:slave divide in 1860. What? (Also, wow is he a bad speaker)

(e) Tom del Beccaro thinks that government has gotten more involved with college education. Sure, it’s taken over student loans, but … in CA, at least, state funding of colleges has dropped precipitously over my lifetime.

(f) The death of a Californian in Paris makes Californians “acutely aware that we live in a dangerous world”? Really?

(g) AG Harris thinks there’s a general consensus that we’re making progress in Syria. I am not aware of that consensus.

(h) Duf Sundheim describes a border wall as 6th century BC technology, which is amusing.

(i) Ron Unz thinks we need to crack down on illegal immigration now even though he agrees that it’s not very high right now? Also, he thinks increasing the minimum wage for legal workers will *decrease* illegal immigration, which is … insane

(j) Loretta Sanchez’ “shoot from the hip style” offends people? Given who she replaced in the Congress, that’s hardly shocking. Orange County seems to like that.

(k) Ron Unz has said outright he isn’t in the race to win, but he’s in the race to publicize a ballot measure. WTF?

(l) both Democrats are in favor of rescheduling marijuana out of schedule I, yay. Three of the five *said* the war on drugs has failed. (Tom del Beccaro thinks that marijuana decriminalization is responsible for the Heroin epidemic, which seems … unlikely).

(m) Tom Del Beccaro wants a flat tax! Ugh.

(n) Ron Unz admits that it’s hard for a Republican to win, and he understands that Pete Wilson’s failed policies causedd it – and he has an interesting point: if a non-traditional Republican pushing things like a minimum wage increase actually *wins* in California, it will really boost his agenda, because Republicans will take notice of what it was that made a Republican win in California.

He’s an optimist, I guess. I’m not as optimistic.

(o) Loretta Sanchez’ closing statement story about meeting a constituent and then getting so outraged that she got the Pentagon to change its policies was a *great* story.

(p) Duf Sundheim wants to work every day and every night to end High Speed Rail, because why?

Remain a mere talk show at the playing square!

More, from the website of the same candidate (http://www.americamustregainitsgreatness2016.com/wpimages/wpb6d4c125_06.png) (yes, yes, a PNG image of text rather than actual text):

My Top Legislative Issues:

In the preivous legislative dispensations, there are several key issues left unattended to. And this has greatly stunted the economic growth of the Great American nation which hitherto has remained the hub of global development in the promotion and defense of democracy, frontally fighting terrorism through military and intelligence cooperation, championing human rights activism and offering financial aids and support social services to other nations especially the Third World countries otherwise known as Developing Nations. As a prospective Senator of the United States of America, my primary assignment is to initiate ddecisions target at revamping the sliding economic fortunes of America. And in tandem with the executive arm, we will arrest growing unemployment index through job creation while dealing w ith the issue debt ceiling among sundry challenges. I will sponsor a bill to mitigate the effects of threatening unemployment rate in the country. On the economy, I will be in the forefrong for tax reform a nd job creation campaign as we strive to stem the rising debt profile in the system.

Healthy people are wealth people: therefore, since the Obamacare health service delivery have become jinxed with unprecedented controversy, I will proffer a better healthcare package through a bill that will benefit every American starting from California State which I represent. I will be instrumental to forging mutual understanding between the Presidency and the legislative aim in resolving every knotty issue that had created impasse in the previous legislative dispensations in the overall interest of American people. Such critical issues like our foreign policy, same sex marriage, immigration, gun control, and war on drugs among others will receive immediate attention if i’m voted in to ably represent California in the next legislative dispensation. American work force will receive commensurate wages in line with increassed minimum wage as approved by president Obama. This would ultimately help millions of Americans support their families and lessen reliance on government assistance. I will present bills to further raise the minimum wage in terms with the economic reality in our country. Finally, I want to reassure you good citizens of America that the diminishing status being ascribed to America as a “Glorified Third World Nation” in some quarters will remain a mere talk show at the playing square and not the truth about our dear America!

Therefore, I urge you good people of California to please entrust me with your mandate to give you a worthy and productive representation at the upper legislative chamber in Washington DC come next year. I promise to keep faith with you as my words remain in my covenant with you.

I don’t actually know why these things exist.

An actual statement in the ballot handbook from a candidate for Senate (name redacted by me):

“Rescue America! Rescue America!! Rescue America!!! Californian! Let us together rescue America from turning into a third world country. Enough is enough of American deep suffering. People in Washington has collapsed this country. Therefore, electing [redacted], as your next United States senator representing the golden state of California 2016 is the answer in order for our country to be reclaimed back.”