Submitted by poliscijunki t3_z0lbp9 in Connecticut
Comments
paintball6818 t1_ix6la0o wrote
My wife literally said this year, ugggh should we even go vote it isn’t going to matter and I made her go. We single handedly did it I tell her now.
naguszek t1_ix7n4sr wrote
It definitely does! My wife and I just moved to Southington and we knew it was pretty red, so it’s exciting to feel our vote really mattered in flipping the district the other way.
5Dprairiedog t1_ix7yumg wrote
I feel this. I moved from a large reliably blue town to a small town that is basically split down the middle last year. This was my first time voting in this new district and I felt like my vote really mattered.
DicmoVolant t1_ix8e24d wrote
Same. Moved from Vermont to New Milford. This town has Republican mayor (who’s alright frankly), our state rep is Republican, and Hayes had a pretty tight race for reelection. This town is split about 60/40 Republicans to Democrats, but lots of liberal folks are moving here and a lot of the kids that grew up here have moved back (or never left) and they are mostly voting Dem. Things are changing and we’re definitely a part of it.
Payment-Main t1_ix7u43y wrote
Great. Just move in and change to what you left behind. I’m sure the locals appreciate it.
MikeNotBrick t1_ix7y0i3 wrote
If you're saying towns should just stay under the status quo, then what's even the point of the election?
fjf1085 t1_ix8773g wrote
That’s what conservatives want. They want things to go their way even if they can’t muster a majority of votes because they believe their way is the only correct way, as they believe they’re the only real Americans.
enigma7x t1_ix870uv wrote
Hate to break it to you buddy but since they live there now, they're locals too.
naguszek t1_ix8duav wrote
Wow someone has a chip on the shoulder, we moved due to a change of jobs, so now we’re ‘local’…should we just vote as others have done before to keep things ‘local’, it doesn’t make sense.
IMgonnaDIE t1_ix85wpc wrote
what an idiotic mentality to have....
0cclumency t1_ix86bly wrote
Apparently about half of them do in fact appreciate it!
Kodiak01 t1_ix80zrj wrote
The people that are infuriating are the ones that refuse to go vote at all just because they don't like the candidates in a single race. They never take local/regional races into account.
SeanFromQueens t1_ix88aj1 wrote
It's because the races that are most profitable to report on (statewide or has a candidate who is incendiary) is all those individuals are basing their judgment on. If news outlets reported on policy differences those same individuals would complain about it all being too boring, but the rest of the electorate would be better informed at the detriment of the news outlets' profit margins.
Kodiak01 t1_ix8anig wrote
> If news outlets reported on policy differences those same individuals would complain about it all being too boring, but the rest of the electorate would be better informed at the detriment of the news outlets' profit margins.
Those differences are precisely why I like my absentee ballot. For all of those unfamiliar races, it gives me the time to look them up right then and there to see their policy differences. It took me nearly twenty minutes at work to fill out the most recent ballot, time which I consider well spent.
SeanFromQueens t1_ix8ebza wrote
The problem that I'm pointing out is that the news outlets filling their airtime/column inches with the least informative races and it turns off the low information voter who judges the election just on the most reported candidates. I suspect that if the news outlets were informative and went in depth into policy differences, the same low information voters that judged that the candidates are all bad/corrupt/liars/what-have-you would still not vote because it was too boring. Shaming the non-voter is not effective at turning them out to vote but neither is informing them because there's a segment of the public who simply will not ever be interested in voting, they will come up with a rationale after the fact.
DicmoVolant t1_ix8cwr7 wrote
You can print a sample ballot, fill it out at your leisure, and bring it with you to the polls. Still more convenient to vote absentee, but in case your ballot never arrives, you can still take your time and research who you’re voting for. Our ballots never showed up this election, so we used samples.
Kodiak01 t1_ix8dhn5 wrote
I vote absentee because I work out of State and I'm one accident detour or bad string of red lights from missing the poll, and even then I have to speed to get there.
The one time I didn't get my ballot to send in, I drove like a madman and made it with less than 5 minutes to spare. Now, if I don't see it by the week before an election, I go to the Town Clerk's office (which is open until 7pm on Thursdays) and pick it up in person.
Usedtoknowsomeone46 t1_ix71ufs wrote
Newtown goes republican all the time. Crazy town.
IrishWithoutPotatoes t1_ix91mkr wrote
Not surprising tbh. I always get funny looks at the bars when people find out I’m actually a liberal.
giant_toad42 t1_ix9k7hu wrote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States
Got some bad news for you and them. We all have far more in common than we know.
We are all .. pretty liberal. The United States is founded on .. liberalism. We progressed due to .. liberalism. The robber barons were made rich by .. liberalism.
Surprised Pikachu - "We're all liberals?!" .. yes. In different degrees, yes. The idea of "conservative" has shifted .. very far from what it once was. All along .. we have been fighting with friends, and friends have lost their way because they no longer see OUR perspective: empathy has died in internet echo chambers. < This is an idea I first heard on NPR - and, of course the story has been BURIED and is invisible. If I try to find it now, I get: "Echo chambers are a myth" --- no, they're not.
Democrats and Republicans aren't a threat to democracy and rule by the people. Echo chambers are.
https://www.fairobserver.com/devils-dictionary/has-democracy-become-a-threadbare-reality/
>Democracy has always been about debate. But debate has all but turned away from its original model, human dialogue aiming at the intelligent sharing and exchange of information. Dialogue implies seeking some form of mutual understanding to mitigate conflict, a state that if allowed to fester can only be resolved by the victory of one side and the defeat of the other. At a time when the White House and the official theoreticians of security in the United States evoke a “battle brewing between authoritarianism and democracy,” the confusion about what democracy means and how it translates into government has never been greater. Contemporary democracy appears to have cultivated a taste for conflict and the minimizing of dialogue.
We are all headed down a dangerous path. Like our need to vote - our need to resist the temptation to be ignorant of the opinions of others .. is equally important. It is how our nation was founded. It is how our nation became great.
Straying from our core values is how we die as a civilization.
LemonyOrchid t1_ixa31ua wrote
There are actually more registered Dems than Republicans in Newtown as of just a few years ago. However the majority of voters are unaffiliated and I think the majority of them are Republicans. Where are you going? My Place and Cover? Lol
IrishWithoutPotatoes t1_ixa36x6 wrote
…don’t hate on my bar choices. I go to Barnwood sometimes…
I should also add I don’t go to Newtown as much anymore because I now live in Fairfield (how dare I)
LemonyOrchid t1_ixa3hau wrote
I’m not hating! Lol. Just a wild guess based on your comment.
IrishWithoutPotatoes t1_ixa3n70 wrote
Lol maybe I need new Newtown bars. But all the staff at the places I go to don’t hate on my political preferences, just some of the other patrons.
[deleted] t1_ix7mx5t wrote
[deleted]
Uharugger t1_ix93edh wrote
It's full of socially liberal, fiscally conservative people. Even the first selectman, who is a democrat, is fiscally conservative, which allows for more social programs etc.
Barrayaran t1_ix9f83s wrote
I'm not sure I follow -- you're saying being fiscal conservative "allows for more social programs"? I ask because most uses I've read of "fiscally conservative" are specifically about not spending on social programs in order to keep taxes low.
Uharugger t1_ix9gxml wrote
Fiscally conservative in this context is just trimming excess where necessary. Making sure funds aren't misappropriated and then distributing them where needed. An example would be, under the old selectmen, the new high school greenhouse (at the time) was allotted $300,000. The person running it said they only needed $100,000 but the school was still given the $300,000. The other $200,000 was no where to be found. This was years ago but that was the kind of bs going on in town for years. The current selectman, who is a democrat, could be considered fiscally conservative. He's great about making sure projects are appropriately managed from a money stand point. Which allows for more funding for social programs, infrastructure projects etc.
giant_toad42 t1_ix9nu25 wrote
There is nothing wrong with reallocating money to do maximum good.
Where we deviate from fiscal conservatism - is when the greenhouse is allocated $300k, but only needs $100k - and the director of the greenhouse replaces the windows every year to make sure that the excess $200k is retained in budget.
The additional $200k could have been saved as surplus or reallocated to different programs. I'd prefer it were saved as surplus for when economic downturn hits .. so cuts are not necessary.
giant_toad42 t1_ix9mosz wrote
I am fiscially conservative - and my definition of that is - when I expend revenue it must go to something I get a return on. It also means acting ethically and responsibly with the money of the people of the United States.
It's a misconception that "fiscially conservative" equals "no social spending at all". I see social spending as an investment and I demand to see a return on investment. If there is no return, there is no spending - programs should do quantifiable good.
I am willing to pay for free college - for students who take college seriously. Those who do not succeed should be quickly removed from classes and pushed into vocational programs. ( I know a load of very well-to-do plumbers, landscapers, and electricians. )
I am willing to support SNAP/Rent subsidy.
I am not willing to support no-strings-attached SNAP/Rent subsidy for healthy people capable of working.
I believe laziness is real and should not be subsidized.
I do not believe people who are of working age and are "out of the workforce" should be excluded from unemployment numbers.
I believe teachers should be paid more, and pre-k/childcare should be heavily subsidized.
I believe tax excessive loopholes for corporations are irresponsible.
I support a global (worldwide) minimum corporate tax.
I am very willing to spend on infrastructure and reliable high capacity public transit ( EG: bringing back light rail. )
I am willing to allow familes on state aid to receive a graduated standard of living based benefit vs income-based benefit with a hard cut-off.
I am not willing to increase welfare cash benefit / discretionary spend, nor do I support "UBI".
I believe politicians who abuse their power for profit should be prosecuted. ( This includes people on both sides. )
LemonyOrchid t1_ixa384f wrote
He’s actually not, anymore.
and_dont_blink t1_ix6a2bz wrote
Uh this is I believe two races going to Dems by a single vote. Statistically that feels a little weird...
Edit: why this is statistically so weird, because I'm getting caught up in some downvoting.
TheOtherMark t1_ix6bcl8 wrote
Given Southington's political compass this isn't that surprising, but Poulos worked hard on his campaign and it's good to see it paid off. Also glad I convinced my family to vote this year.
Now if only we didn't delegate library power away from the library...
EDIT: It's a figure of speech guys, relax.
TankGirlwrx t1_ix6e1al wrote
Oh dammit, the library measure didn’t pass? I was so focused on finding out if Poulos won in the recount I forgot to check the other ballot measure outcomes.
At least the state passed early voting!
edit: I realize after discussion that passing in this case is the undesired outcome if we want the library to be run/managed by the library staff.
TheOtherMark t1_ix6evbs wrote
I haven't been able to find the other ballot measure outcomes. My brother told me Question 4 did pass but I haven't found proof. As this sub discussed, voting "yes" was a bad idea.
TankGirlwrx t1_ix7u0gq wrote
Honestly, that question was so poorly worded and probably on purpose. Thanks for the links
It’s weird that the “yes” signs had the love your library slogan on them, and unlike others I saw them next to all sorts of other political signs. I feel like I voted the wrong way now, and I’m pissed they worded that question the way they did
TheOtherMark t1_ix83ims wrote
The Republicans who want more control over the library wanted it to be confusing so they can override your critical thinking and vote their way. They love those lawn signs because they remove all nuance from the equation. "The library told me to vote yes? Good enough for me!" But if you research the town charter and state statutes, and you consider what the question asks you to change from the status quo, a reasonable voter probably doesn't come to the conclusion they want.
No matter how you voted on the question, this is a good experience and a valuable lesson. You went out and voted, that's good. Now you have to become an informed voter.
TankGirlwrx t1_ix83y99 wrote
The frustrating thing is I usually consider myself informed! This question was a surprise to me like the day before election day and honestly, I probably should have just not filled that one in, knowing I didn't have enough info. I find it fairly difficult to find good info on local referendums though (which is probably also by design in this town...)
TheOtherMark t1_ix8868r wrote
Then you're already doing better than half of Southington. XD
I usually look up the sample ballot by the end of October and spend an afternoon figuring out how I want to vote on everything. The real ballots rarely (but can) change by election time. The library question did have me dig deeper than normal, but the town charter and CT laws are all available online. And I guess if all else fails, you could always ask reddit (and deal with all that entails lol).
TankGirlwrx t1_ix8daul wrote
I do wish I hadn't missed the thread here before the election, that would have been helpful! Thanks for the kind words :)
AugustusPompeianus t1_ix8id2x wrote
The library is place to go for access for good quality news while allowing patrons access to internet and books of all opinions.
Librarians (or their board of directors) have the opinions they have for a good reason.
It's a sad hill to die on to regulate libraries.
frissonFry t1_ix7zu8y wrote
People did choose the worst option, but I can't find the article now. It was fairly easy for me to find only a few days after the election though.
TankGirlwrx t1_ixczip0 wrote
Found the results of the other ballot measures! https://patch.com/connecticut/southington/southington-election-results-2022-polls-close
TheOtherMark t1_ixd1xe9 wrote
Nice, thank you!
Rude_Technician655 t1_ix6leyt wrote
2 races decided by one vote is weird no matter what you say
and_dont_blink t1_ix6hbss wrote
>Given Southington's political compass this isn't that surprising
It should be surprising, statistically the odds of a race coming down to one vote is exceptionally small -- and the larget larger the township the more unlikely. It happening twice is weird. It happening for the same party is another layer.
enigma7x t1_ix6nf8a wrote
I mean, in other parts of the country these right races went to the other party. It just shows how tight things were in this midterm. The liberal candidates managed to squeak out just enough more voters in a couple of contests here - and Connecticut is by default more liberal than conservative. Pretty sure the republican state senator in my district won by a margin of dozens? There were tons of close races in the state.
and_dont_blink t1_ix6rftw wrote
>I mean, in other parts of the country these right races went to the other party.
Yes, this was a contested race but...
> It just shows how tight things were in this midterm.
It does, but it's statistically really unlikely it is to win by one vote, especially in a larger election. Here's a list of super-close votes that have occurred across the country from 1800 to 2010, and note this election had 10,593 votes cast.
You'll notice that most of those are not one-vote wins, but a few hundred or two votes and (a) It isn't that many (b) the majority are much smaller votes (c) they're having to fudge, e.g. "1.1 votes per precinct across the election" (d)
Two races winning by one vote for the same party is like winning the powerball multiple times. Statistically possible but surprising as hell.
enigma7x t1_ix7m3b0 wrote
It's definitely a pretty wild thing to happen. All the more reason to vote - local politics offers a lot more opportunity for your vote to count for something.
What's a little bizarre is your inability to accept that it happened without casting any doubt on it. Crazy things happen all the time. I'm sure this won't be the last close local election in Connecticut and I imagine they go the other way too.
Instead of being suspicious about it, why not transfer that energy into your preferred local candidate next time? Get out a canvas or phone bank for them.
and_dont_blink t1_ix7qxhz wrote
>It's definitely a pretty wild thing to happen.
We agree!
>What's a little bizarre is your inability to accept that it happened without casting any doubt on it.
If you read the actual chain enigma7x, I was responding to someone saying it wasn't surprising at all -- then listed out why it was. Please don't turn this into something it isn't or say I said something I didn't.
In fact in your other comment, you're saying it isn't weird at all. It's super damned weird, that's all.
enigma7x t1_ix86r4o wrote
It is wild and dramatic, but really not that weird at the local level. My comment still stands.
A lot of your comments in this thread make you sound very suspicious of the process. I am not sure if that was your intention, but a lot of them are reading that way, and after 2020 and Jan 6th I am always going to be critical of that tone.
and_dont_blink t1_ix873dc wrote
>A lot of your comments in this thread make you sound very suspicious of the process.
Could you point to them enigma7x?
From where I'm standing, it's someone putting words in someone's mouth and attempting to bully them into not participating in the subreddit for a simple statement, while saying different things in different comments. It's not really cool dude.
What comments in this thread did I make that made me sound very suspicious of the process?
asimplescribe t1_ix88zre wrote
The reason you keep pointing out how weird it is and adding nothing to discussion is because you want to raise controversy with a group that has problem accepting election results.
and_dont_blink t1_ix89sz6 wrote
No, again, the reason I keep pointing it out is because I said it was weird, and then responded to someone saying "It's not weird" and "it's not a surprise."
I have no issue with someone going "Yeah it's super weird, this is why votes matter" but I have an issue with someone denying basic probabilities or claiming I said something I didn't say.
enigma7x t1_ix89qal wrote
>It should be surprising, statistically the odds of a race coming down to one vote is exceptionally small -- and the larget larger the township the more unlikely. It happening twice is weird. It happening for the same party is another layer.
This comment's entire thesis is that it's unlikely because it benefitted one party over another. This makes me suspicious because realistically if you find this occurrence weird, it should be weird even if D won one and R won the other. It's all so statistically improbable right? So you seem a little fixated on the outcome here. It makes me wonder if we would be seeing this thread at all if the R candidates had won the close election instead. You can say what you want in reply to this, but given your fixation its a suspicion that immediately comes to mind and that's really all that is relevant here.
>You'll notice that most of those are not one-vote wins, but a few hundred or two votes and (a) It isn't that many (b) the majority are much smaller votes (c) they're having to fudge, e.g. "1.1 votes per precinct across the election" (d)Two races winning by one vote for the same party is like winning the powerball multiple times. Statistically possible but surprising as hell.
You seem very interested in putting on the appearance of approaching this rationally and statistically - but then in these comments you cite a source of close elections and your entire argument is essentially "but I feel like this isn't convincing." I am highly suspicious of people making feelings based argument. You then make a statistical assertion with absolutely no evidence. If you want to liken close elections occurring to the probability of winning the power ball multiple times the onus is on you to show that this is a meaningfully equivalent statement. The fact that you didn't just leaves me to think that the math hasn't actually been done. If that is the case, then you said this with the intention of being hyperbolic. If you are being hyperbolic, then you are doing it because you're trying to rile up an emotional response to your statement instead of a rational one. This leaves me suspicious.
Then the entire parent comment here in the first place is just a classic "begging the question." If you don't want to look like you're begging the question, then you could have simple said "Wow, thats two elections going the way of the same party by 1 vote this year. I wonder what the probability is on that?" The things we say and the way we present ourselves matter. Your initial comment, as it is presented, is draped in a tone of suspicion. Maybe english isn't your first language, maybe there is a bunch of other explanations for that - but you should know that you sound, in tone, one or two comments away from being an election denier. The bedrock for the rhetoric is there, and the thought patterns are there. Do with that what you will.
EDIT: To any readers just know that this poster blocked me. I have no idea how they replied and the fact that they blocked me despite putting in the effort above is a large tell. They are arguing in this thread in bad faith and the moment they were challenged they folded and blocked me to protect their own feelings. Don't buy in to any arguments coming from this poster - they are trying to stoke flames of conspiracy.
and_dont_blink t1_ix8ejbr wrote
>This comment's entire thesis is that it's unlikely because it benefitted one party over another.
No, it was about the statistical odds of it occurring at all -- that it benefited one party added a whole other layer. It's pretty clear right there in the comment, and I think you know that enigma7x
.
SeanFromQueens t1_ix89t7x wrote
In 2016 Democratic Iowa Caucus, there were handful of ties that were decided by coin flip
>The Des Moines Register has identified six coin flips through social media and one in an interview with a caucus participant. Of those seven, Clinton was the apparent winner of six. It's unknown if there is any overlap between the coin flips identified by the Register and the coin flips the state party confirmed.
So in a small enough election the possibility of a one vote margin of victory or a tie goes up exponentially. The statistics of even distribution (such as coin flips) need a large number of attempts made and there aren't enough ties and 1 vote victory margins for that to be expressed, it's just more likely in smaller elections.
and_dont_blink t1_ix8ebeb wrote
....this is about something very, very different even if it's implied there were six ties and they flipped a coin:
>Here’s what happened in Ames, according to David Schweingruber, an associate professor of sociology at Iowa State University (and Sanders supporter) who participated in the caucus:
A total of 484 eligible caucus attendees were initially recorded at the site. But when each candidate’s preference group was counted, Clinton had 240 supporters, Sanders had 179 and Martin O’Malley had five (causing him to be declared non-viable).
Those figures add up to just 424 participants, leaving 60 apparently missing. When those numbers were plugged into the formula that determines delegate allocations, Clinton received four delegates and Sanders received three — leaving one delegate unassigned.
Unable to account for that numerical discrepancy and the orphan delegate it produced, the Sanders campaign challenged the results and precinct leaders called a Democratic Party hot line set up to advise on such situations.
Party officials recommended they settle the dispute with a coin toss.
SeanFromQueens t1_ix8hysd wrote
But much like the presidential votes determined by the US House (which appeared in your list of really close elections), when it's such a small number of voters it's more likely to be single digit margin of victory. Statistics would also make it likely with enough small elections, that resulted in a narrow or tied election there would a close to 50-50 break out, but only if there were thousands of instances. Most smaller elections are lopsided making the number of instances to occur take hundreds of years to see the result of near even outcomes. It's likely there will be drastic changes in partisan make up or demographic shifts or even electoral reform that would avoid the enough occurrences to have that result.
[deleted] t1_ix7ia4m wrote
[deleted]
enigma7x t1_ix6n0jj wrote
It isn't weird at all. The more local the elections get, the more each individual vote counts.
TimeTraveler3056 t1_ix89phz wrote
Synchronicities are meaningful coincidences
Darondo t1_ix9ami0 wrote
It really isn’t at all.
Winning by exactly one vote isn’t any less likely than winning by exactly 158 votes. But no one bats an eye at that just because it’s less close, despite it having the same statistical likelihood.
There are republicans that won by tight margins too. Not everything is a conspiracy you weirdo.
and_dont_blink t1_ix9b2za wrote
>Winning by exactly one vote isn’t less likely than winning by exactly 100 votes.
Yes, it is. It's math and basic statistics.
>Not everything is a conspiracy you weirdo.
Nobody said it was a conspiracy, why are you calling names about something that was never said Darondo?
Darondo t1_ix9c8il wrote
Basic stats? Show me then.
and_dont_blink t1_ix9f24r wrote
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/11/here-are-the-chances-your-vote-matters.html
As you'll see, the larger the number the less likely it becomes. That's whether your vote matters, but for the purposes of this it can be whether any particular vote will break the tie. It's why in the list I gave before, single-vote wins are exceptionally rare and when they do occur it's generally in smaller votes.
Can you show me yours?
Darondo t1_ix9iqn0 wrote
This link doesn’t show any math at all.
In a random election, a dead heat is statistically the most probably outcome. Yes it’s highly unlikely with a large number of voters, but not more so than any other exact outcome.
It’s just coin flip probability. Here is the math.
and_dont_blink t1_ix9jx89 wrote
You,'re right, I misread what you originally wrote, sorry about that.
So why bring up winning by one vote vs an arbitrary number you have picked beforehand if they are both astronomically rare? What is the point?
Darondo t1_ix9mhpd wrote
Right, I think there is no point. An outcome is what it is. A virtually tied election isn’t statistically less likely (or statistically weirder) than any other exact arbitrary outcome.
I (mis)interpreted your original comment as a suggestion of potential election fuckery. Apologies if that’s not what you were getting at.
and_dont_blink t1_ix9ndgn wrote
>A virtually tied election isn’t statistically less likely (or statistically weirder) than any other exact arbitrary outcome.
Well we just know that's not true, it's powerball level odds to pick a random number and hit it. Winning the lottery is weird. Winning it twice is spooky. Winning it twice at the same gas station is weird asf.
>I (mis)interpreted your original comment as a suggestion of potential election fuckery. Apologies if that’s not what you were getting at.
Nah, tho even if I did think that I wish people would chill in the name calling and acting like that it isn't going to change minds yah know?
Someone rigging elections and making it by one vote would be idiotic lol just like if they both won by 153. But it's weird asf
[deleted] t1_ix865wu wrote
[removed]
beazneaz t1_ix6ixld wrote
There was a lot of weird this round
That_Guy381 t1_ix6w5i3 wrote
If you guys want evidence of how much Donald Trump has damaged trust in our democracy, look right at this comment
beazneaz t1_ixdotxd wrote
So basically, democracy is at work so don’t ask questions…. Seems legit.
beazneaz t1_ixaa1zv wrote
Lol this CT subreddit is a joke. AZ just took a week to count there votes and 100% of independent voters voted for Hobbs, the one in charge of elections. You would rather “smash” the other side into submission then show genuine concern for the democratic process. Hypocrites are the worst.
That_Guy381 t1_ixact6v wrote
The rules in Arizona were put in by republicans.
>100% of independent voters voted for Hobbs
Source?
In any event, thanks for proving my point.
[deleted] t1_ixcd9x1 wrote
[removed]
beazneaz t1_ixcj0mr wrote
Fetterman gets over 80% in the Philly district and you have ZERO questions. He can’t talk. Also a dead guy won. ZERO questions.
That_Guy381 t1_ixcr9uj wrote
I love how you move the goalposts, but in an effort to try to help you through your confusion, I’ll engage.
As for Fetterman, why would I have questions about a Democrat winning 80% of the vote in black majority city? Democrats have won philly overwhelmingly in every single election for decades.
Obama won 85% of the vote in Philadelphia, and over 99% in some wards.
Biden got 81%. Why is Fetterman winning 80% in any way shocking to you, considering this is how it has always been?
The dead guy? He ran essentially unopposed, only by a green party candidate. At best, the voters knew that he was dead and thought that it was better to have a special election than vote in a green party candidate. At worst, they didn’t know, and voted in a dead guy. In any event, this doesn’t at all point to any fraudulent voting.
So my assumption here is now that you’ve had 4 talking points debunked, you’re not going to respond to this comment. Hopefully it gets you to change your view, but I’m not counting on it.
beazneaz t1_ixdfzuw wrote
You’ll have to explain what goalposts I moved. I’m somewhat surprised you ventured so far to equate Obama or even Biden to Fetterman. You avoided my original reply about AZ since you are keeping score. Perhaps this can be a discussion without hostility? I think no matter where you fall on the political spectrum we can agree that the is a top-down, divide and conquer tactic at play. Our modes of information are weaponized against us. No one wins if we’re at each other’s throats.
That_Guy381 t1_ixewmd0 wrote
They’re both democrats - why wouldn’t I equate them? Haven’t you guys been calling Biden brain dead for the better part of 3 years? Why would Fetterman be any different?
I didn’t avoid your “questions” about Arizona. I answered one, and asked for a source on your other claim, which you failed to provide, hence moving the goal posts.
I guess I answered your questions about the dead guy, however, so that’s nice.
I’d love to have a discussion without hostility, but we have to exist in the same reality. Facts are facts, no matter your feelings, right?
Do you seriously think that Hobbs got 100% of the independents, and everyone’s ignoring that?
Why do you have questions about Fetterman, a democrat, winning 80% of the vote in Philadelphia, a city overwhelmingly won by Democrats, year after year, especially against a carpetbagging, anti abortion, snake oil doctor from Jersey?
You have literally zero evidence for you claims other than “feels”.
beazneaz t1_ixf4v2o wrote
I did provide a link about AZ, now if that post didn’t show up to you then that’s a different matter all together. Wouldn’t be the first time on Reddit. It’s true that we don’t exist in the same reality. Consider me like a Democrat from the early 2000s. I hate everything the Bush family represented. The D party, however, is unrecognizable today. As a matter of fact it’s just one big party in DC with some sort of overlords pulling the strings.
That_Guy381 t1_ixf5jcr wrote
The comment with your link to AZ didn’t show up, no. Do you mind DM’ing it to me?
Whether or not the D party unrecognizable has no bearing on our democracy.
zgrizz t1_ix7tfb5 wrote
You can't say negative things, or even say something that someone under the influence might take as negative, about Democrats here. You will be downvoted mercilessly by people who claim to practice 'tolerance'.
the-crotch t1_ix85zbx wrote
You're wrong, and I'll prove it.
"Fuck Malloy."
akoba15 t1_ix7xlda wrote
Lmao salty much? Wah wahhh
im_intj t1_ix7v7b0 wrote
Correct
Buy-theticket t1_ix8vjca wrote
There's no issue talking shit about dems.. watch, Joe Biden sucks and I only voted for him because he was the lesser evil.
The downvotes come in when you all start parroting lies and propaganda or making baseless claims based on how you feel vs reality.
im_intj t1_ix8wnau wrote
Previous comment from myself and other user prove otherwise. And if you give it enough time this comment as well.
Buy-theticket t1_ix8yxyj wrote
No.. you're downvoted because you're lying and regurgitating propaganda about the poor oppressed conservatives.
Exactly as I said.
[deleted] t1_ix9090p wrote
[deleted]
MutuallyAssuredBOOP t1_ix87i24 wrote
This gentleman taught Spanish at my high school for years. A truly kind, humble, learned and worldly individual. I wish there could be so many more people like him in politics.
LaxHnl t1_ix82uqh wrote
Small region, small population, this makes sense. This is why every adult who's eligible should register to vote, learn about the candidates/options and vote.
enigma7x t1_ix8p3kj wrote
Just in case anyone else tries to raise conspiratorial rhetoric in this thread realize that Ryan Fazio, a republican representing the 36th district in the state senate, won his election by about 89 votes. There were close elections all over the state because.... my best guess is in traditionally more republican locations, the CT GOP for some reason seems to continue to field bad candidates so democrats are making some races closer than expected (and fielding strong candidates like Chris Poulos).
It's really unsettling that the reaction to a close election has gone from "wow, that's so close!" to "I don't believe it."
Jawaka99 t1_ix9pvn4 wrote
So voting fraud, even on very small scales can matter.
Hmm, this was brushed off only a week or so ago.
boy80eight t1_ixa4hy0 wrote
Nothing to see hear and no questions
LemonyOrchid t1_ix6kpsh wrote
People don’t believe it, but in these local elections, EVERY vote counts. We’ve had races won on 5, 6, 12 votes in the years I’ve been keeping an eye in things in Newtown.