CA - How I voted on the candidates, propositions and ballot measures.

Hi everybody, so I filled out my absentee ballot and already sent it in, it's the only way to fly in Oakland since our know nothing Elections Supervisor bought a bunch of Sequoia systems fraud machines despite popular outcry... anyway here's how I voted:

Partisan Offices - statewide
----
Governor - Phil Angelides
Lt. Governor - John Garamendi
Secretary of State - Debra Bowen
State Controller - John Chiang
State Treasurer - Bill Lockyer
Attorney General - Jerry Brown
Insurance Commisioner - Cruz Bustamente (with waffling)
United States Senate - (blank) or Diane Feinstein (see below)
United States Representative - Barbara Lee
State Assembley - Sandre Swanson
Judges - re-elect
Statewide propositions.
Proposition 1A-NO!
Propositions 1B-1E Yes.
Proposition 83 - NO!!
Proposition 84 - Yes
Proposition 85 - FUCK NO!!!
Proposition 86 - Yes
Proposition 87 - HELL YES!
Proposition 88 - No
Proposition 89 - YES YES YES! HELL YES!!
Proposition 90 - NO!
---
City of Oakland
---
Measure M - yes
Measure N - YES!
Measure O - YES YES YES!

The "why's" are below the cut.

Partisan Offices - statewide
Governor -
Phil Angelides

It's an easy decision really, Arnold has been playing the part of a moderate ever since he got his ass handed to him in the last "special election". Phil Angelides, has the brains, the know how, and the plan to lead this great state, and it's the rare case where the establishment backed candidate is actually the best one of the bunch. It breaks my heart that his idiot campaign manager is such a fool and might blow it.

Let's be clear, no Democrat or Independent should vote for Arnold... Period.

oh and Pete Camejo used to be cool, but is kind of a dick now.
I voted for him over Gray Davis, and would gladly do so again, but the Democratic Nominee is a Pragmatic progressive, what the hell is Pete doing in this race anyway?

I really hope Phil can pull it off, but rather then just hope, i'm going to canvass and call for him this weekend.

Lt. Governor -
John Garamendi
Tom McClintock is an asshole. One of the biggest assholes in CA.
Garadmendi is kind of "eh." but has his moments. I'm not his biggest supporter like some folks, but he's good... I like Phil a hell of a lot better personally. He's big on stem cell research... so am I, 'nuff said.

Secretary of State -
Debra Bowen
uh... Verified Voting activist/superstar vs. Arnold's Diebold loving appointee?
no fracking contest. I am totally all about Debra Bowen, and you should be too.

State Controller -
John Chiang
He's a good dude.

State Treasurer -
Bill Lockyer
I could make a statement about the statewide office "revolving door", but i'll save that for my buddy Cruz.
Lockyer has done a decent enough job as AG, why not let him handle the money?
Sure.

Attorney General -
Jerry Brown
I had my issues with him as mayor of my city, and it bugs me that he's so adamant on the very Draconian Death Penalty, but Poochigian is far worse and has way more of a douchebaggy name. ha ha! I guess Jerry's plan is to hold every office in the state before he dies...

Insurance Commisioner -
Cruz Bustamente
I literally felt dirty in the recall after I voted "NO" (esp. since Gray Davis was an ass and I wanted him gone, just not that way), and then voted for Bustamente, even though I really wanted to vote for Arianna. I have rarely felt "dirty" after voting except for when I voted for that useless waste of flesh. The ONLY thing I can think of that he did that I liked was the lawsuit against Enron after the rolling blackmail... which was admittedly heroic and kind of awesome. Otherwise... he's a jackass! And... it seems like you see the same 6 or 7 names every cycle as they all play this game of musical chairs changing positions. Totally lame. Ugh, a tactical vote at best... but at least i get to vote FOR Phil and Debra this cycle.

United States Senate -
Oh DiFi! DiFi, DiFi, DiFi... you bum me out, i'm glad this will be your last Senate term, as you are a constant source of elitism and frustration. I hate that you are so beholden to big business, you're most "reliable" when it comes time for the one liberal boilerplate issue I am most mushy on... gun control. I hate that you embolden torturers, and need to have crushing amounts of public outrage before opposing real a-holes like John Roberts confirmation. There are a few things you are ok on, but overall, the only reason to vote for you is because Democrats need to take control of the Senate to keep checks and balances and such around. I may vote for you, I may not... I wrote myself in for the primary, because quite frankly, I could do a hell of a lot better job. If I do vote for you, it's because Dick Mountjoy, while a wonderful pr0nstar name would be a absolutely horrid Senator, not because you are worth a damn at all.

United States Representative-
Barbara Lee
One of my top 10 politicians ever, and my representative, if half of the congresspeople out there had even a quarter of her integrity and guts we'd be a lot better off.

State Assembley-
Sandre Swanson
Seems like a good dude, smart progressive type, and Babs likes him. Besides what am I going to do, vote "Peace and Freedom"? It's Oakland baby!

Judges
re-elect all... got caught with my pants down on this one, but since I don't have any beefs rightn ow, i'll just be ready next time.

Statewide propositions.
Proposition 1A
NO!
I already have to do the legislatures job a couple times a year because so many props like this have the budget locked down.
fuggit. Transportation funding is vital, but mandatory amounts are dumb, and i'm sick of it, and having to research these stupid things.

NO!

Propositions 1B-1E
Yes.
I'm still pissed that this somehow has turned into "Arnold's issue" when he had to be dragged kicking and screaming into it just in time for election season. But whaever... infrastructure is important.

Now again, don't we elect a fracking legislature for this crapola???
STOP BOTHERING ME!!!

Proposition 83
NO!!
A Blatant sop to get out the religious types that are always concerned about "focusing on the family" as well as authoritarian a-holes. Look, I think sex offenders are horrible too, but this is Draconian! GPS monitoring for life?
That's a slippery damn slope. All of the empty posturing that goes over sex offenders sickens me almost as much as the offending itself. Ok, not really... but still... come now. The standards are fine now.

Proposition 84
Yes
Bond measure make me curl up my lip like Billy Idol, because the mantra seems to be "borrow, borrow, borrow", but this is about water safety and flood control. Every week in rainy times when I drive to Roseville and I see the Delta swelling, I get images of the levees and New Orleans.

no thanks.
It's a begrudging yes, but a yes, nonetheless.

Proposition 85
FUCK NO!!!
Yet again another winger "base turner outter", a "waiting period and parental notification before termination of a minor's pregnancy". Right, because it's far too easy to have this horrible operation performed now right? I am for personal freedom, and that includes a woman's right to have dominion of her own body, including minors.
I cannot emphasize FUCK NO, enough.

Proposition 86
Yes (with some waffling)
Sorry smokers! Try to see beyond the pocketbook on this one.
I'm all for everybodies personal freedom to fuck up their lungs and give themselves cancer, but we still don't have real education about the drug that is tobacco and we need that.

a few concerns have been raised by some friends of mine on this... mainly that it goes to private hospitals and adds stuff into the constitution, which bums me out... but still, i'm a soft yes.

Proposition 87
HELL YES!
Reduce dependence on foreign oil? Reduce air pollution?
Wait, why would anybody be against this again?
Oh yeah... the oil companies.
Screw them!

Proposition 88
No
It sounds good on first read, property tax to pay for more funding for schools right?
It creates a bad amount of bureaucracy, and who decides what are "academically successful" schools anyway?
lame!
no.

Proposition 89
YES YES YES! HELL YES!!
This is the public financing of elections, if you are going to vote for only two things this year... well... then you are being silly, but the key is to vote for Phil Angelides and this. Because god damn... I mean GOD DAMN... this will fix soooo many of our problems. Not the least of which is that you need to be an eccentric billionaire to win a statewide race in this damn Nationstate of ours called CA.

Proposition 90
NO!
Uh... dude? Why are NY Libertiarians writing propositions for California?
Eminant domain is BS, but so is this:
From speakout:

This measure has so much to dislike that it brings together in opposition one of the most unusual alliances imaginable. Joining virtually every environmental group in the state in opposition are taxpayers rights groups, the California Chamber of Commerce, consumer groups, scientists and public health agencies and even the California Farm Bureau.

That a-hole Tom McClintock likes it too, so that should be reason enough to vote no. A good rule of thumb is if the left and right both agree on something, there's probably something significant happening.

Pretty much everybody agrees this one is BS.
NO!

---

City of Oakland

Measure M
yes
Whatever. Some BS about the polce and fire retirement board... just reading about it made my attention wander, there's no argument against, no penalty. If it wasn't about peoples retirement I wouldn't have voted either way at all.

Measure N
YES!
Kick ass new library at Henry J. Kaiser center?!
HELL YEAH!

edit: and also more funding for critical library infrastructure and other things my librarian friends can tell you more about.

Measure O
YES YES YES!
If you are against this Measure you are truly against Democracy... come on... ranked choice voting! Who loses? We'd be looking at city council member Aimee Allison if this already went through!
besides less elections = better in my book.

•  unlike the Bush Administration..

  dissenting views are welcome!

  -C.

  by Neutron on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 11:19:46 AM PDT

•  Dunn Cracked Enron

  by RandyMI on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 11:22:11 AM PDT

  •  Correct.

    And he lost to Chiang in the Democratic primary.  But whatever.

    by willy mugobeer on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 11:24:35 AM PDT

    •  I wish i could vote for him instead of Cruz.

      For Insurance Commmisioner.

      He's a much better candidate.

      -C.

      by Neutron on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 11:29:53 AM PDT

  •  noted and corrected.

    How embarasking!

    -C.

    by Neutron on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 11:26:37 AM PDT

•  You Forgot Betty Yee

  For Board of Equalization.

  by RandyMI on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 11:24:57 AM PDT

  •  you are right!

    thanks for the headsup.

    I also voted for Betty.

    -C.

    PS: Sweet Nick Cave quote BTW.

    by Neutron on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 11:27:19 AM PDT

•  Judges!!!

  I also had to punt this one when I sent recommendations to my friends earlier this week.

  But a good friend just sent me some info; it comes from BeyondChron --which is a source I usually trust -- and concurs with other stuff I've heard.  

  Go read the article yourself, but in brief, here are the recommendations:

  For the Supreme Court, I recommend JOYCE L. KENNARD on the sole fact that Carol Corrigan has been described as "one of the most conservative" judges in the state.

  For the Court of Appeals, Division 1, I recommend SANDRA MARGULIES. James Marchiano is an anti-tenant judge appointed by former Republican Governor Pete Wilson, one of the most right-wing extremists ever to run California.

  For the Court of Appeals, Division 2, I recommend JAMES RICHMAN. His opponent, Paul Haerle, has been described as a "card carrying Republican" and was appointed by Wilson.

  For the Court of Appeals, Division 3, I recommend PETER SIGGINS. While I feel he could shift slightly either left or right from the center on human rights, his opponent, William McGuiness, is one of the most anti-gay, homophobic judges in the country and doesn't deserve being elected even as dog catcher.

  For the Court of Appeals, Division 4, I recommend MARIA P. RIVERA. Her opponents, Ignazio John Ruvolo and Patricia Sepulveda, were appointed by the extremist Pete Wilson and their credentials are suspect.

  There is no opposition to the Division 5 seat, so your vote really doesn't matter.

  by willy mugobeer on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 11:28:37 AM PDT

  •  see, now THIS is what i'm talking about.

    This is great information.

    -C.

    by Neutron on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 11:30:37 AM PDT

    •  It may be SF-specific...

      ...I'm not sure where the borders of the districts are.

      by willy mugobeer on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 11:38:34 AM PDT

      •  supreme court

        is a statewide vote; those other candidates must be in SF.

        This confuses me:

        For the Supreme Court, I recommend JOYCE L. KENNARD on the sole fact that Carol Corrigan has been described as "one of the most conservative" judges in the state.

        Kennard and Corrigan are NOT running against each other as the writer implies; this is an up/down vote on each of them separately. Kennard is a Deukmejian appointee and certainly not liberal (although the repubs don't think she's conservative enough.

        by esquimaux on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 12:06:50 PM PDT

•  Prop 86

  Does more than that. If the propisition passes and the net effect is the "reduction in smoking" then where will the money to fund the continued programs come from? After all only 10% of the funds raised will go to anti-tobacco education and really, uh, there is plenty of information freely and readily available on the drug that is Nicotine.

  Too late now but that proposition is putting a tax on a small few to fund programs not even related to smoking not to mention lining the pockets of Hospital Corps.

  by Dreggas on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 11:31:28 AM PDT

  •  these are the concerns that were brought to me.

    And they are good ones, although i wonder why there was no serious opposition that I could find other then the Tobacco companies.

    I mean they aren't exactly the best spokespeople for something like this you know?

    -C.

    by Neutron on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 12:03:35 PM PDT

    •  Just read

      the voters guide. The problem is here in Cal that there is no organized smokers lobby just like there isn't one elsewhere save for the tobacco companies and well, we know that they are about.

      The proponents of 86 took what was to be a "feel good" vote and screwed California on it, not just smokers and "big tobacco".

      For more information see my entry for today here: http://www.dailykos.com/...

      I should have written this one a while ago but was writing about and dealing with other issues.

      by Dreggas on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 12:17:29 PM PDT

      •  I'm going to read your diary NOW!!

        Prop 86 is a huge concern for me-there's a lot of hidden BS in the prop that I'd like to discuss, except my daughter torn those pages out of the Official Voter Information Guide for her school presentation.

        See you over there.  :)

        by goodasgold on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 12:31:08 PM PDT

    •  Neutron, you should have waffled

      a bit longer on 86.

      by goodasgold on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 12:32:28 PM PDT

•  DiFi

  Just. Couldn't.

  I voted early, and if the race had been closer, I would have held my nose and voted for her.  There are some things I like about her very much - and watching her make Alberto Gonzales squirm was priceless.  

  But I can't forget or forgive Oct 11, 2002, when she stated that the overwhelming majority of her consituents were against handing the President the authorization to declare war and she went ahead and voted yes.  

  by dirkster42 on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 11:34:18 AM PDT

  •  It's this kind of choice

    that makes me yearn for "NOTA"--None Of The Above (do over!)

    by ogre on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 11:54:35 AM PDT

  •  Believe me i hear you... most definitely.

    She's "Sistah Souljahed" us so damn much, she can do it without me as far as i'm concerned. She can just keep all that lovely Republican support.

    besides "Dick" Mountjoy is polling in the 20%, so i'm not worried.

    At least she's moveable on important things once in awhile...

    but I cannot WAIT until she retires.

    -C.

    by Neutron on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 12:05:50 PM PDT

•  Here's a suggestion

  Maybe there should be a Proposition to reduce the ease with which propositions can be put on the ballot.

  by healthpellets on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 11:39:34 AM PDT

  •  Debra Bowen has thoughts on this

    I don't have time to research them now, but I'm sure her website has it.  She is trying to walk the fine line of maintaining our proposition authority (and free speech arguments bound to be used in court) while stemming the tide of government-by-initiative which is really screwing this state up.

    by Intellectually Curious on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 11:58:17 AM PDT

    •  Her ideas,

      I believe, revolve around:

      •  tighter restrictions on who can gather signatures (to make it harder for out-of-staters to parachute in and get paid by jerks like Howie Rich to gather sigs, often fraudulently); and
      • big-font-size disclosure on petitions themselves as to whether the signature gatherer is paid, and by whom.

      I'm trying to recall more details of the conversation when I asked her about this, but it was nearly a year ago.  She's definitely on the right track on this, though.

      by willy mugobeer on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 12:08:21 PM PDT

  •  believe it or not...

    I actually started writing just such a proposition, before I realized:
    A) I was duplicating work
    and
    B) I had very little clue what I was doing.

    Yeah, Bowen is on it though.
    Prop. reform is sorely needed.

    -C.

    by Neutron on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 01:02:09 PM PDT

•  New West Notes: Dems Should Sweep Down-Ballot

  Link

  All things being equal, even with Schwarzenegger re-elected, Democrats should sweep all the other offices, with the possible exception of insurance commissioner, where moderate Republican Steve Poizner is exceptionally well-funded and outgoing Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante is damaged. Yet the three offices discussed above are still very much in play, despite this being what looks like a big Democratic year nationally, because of the Schwarzenegger-Angelides imbalance at the top of the ticket.

  by RandyMI on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 11:41:06 AM PDT

  •  true.

    honestly though, Bradley is so partisan and pro-Schwarzenegger you have to say everything he says about the Gov race with a grain of salt.

    -C.

    by Neutron on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 01:03:21 PM PDT

•  I'm Still Annoyed

  That Jackie Speier was not nominated for Lt. Gov. Garimendi may be a great guy, but Jackie would have injected a lot of new energy for our side and positioned her well for a shot at Gov. This state party is long overdue for an enema.

  by RandyMI on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 11:43:31 AM PDT

  •  I agree.

    i voted for Jackie in the primary, that was a heartbreaker it was so close.

    -C.

    by Neutron on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 01:03:44 PM PDT

•  i'm still not sure

  whether I can stand to vote for Bustamante. Besides your good reasons for not liking him, you forgot to mention that he started this campaign for insurance commissioner by soliciting donations from the insurance industry.

  other than him, straight Dem ticket.

  When you mentioned musical chairs, I put Garamendi in that category too; not as slimy as Bustamante but still  not good. Just another of the same old guys I'm tired of. (no question about how I'm voting here though, since McClintock is awful).

  Thanks Willy for the judge info.

  by esquimaux on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 11:48:10 AM PDT

  •  yeah...

    there definitely are a lot of reasons not to vote Cruz.

    Ugh, so sick of the musical chairs.

    Garamendni is in that category too, but he ain't so bad.
    i'd have preferred Jackie though.

    -C.

    by Neutron on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 01:04:44 PM PDT

•  being a permanent absentee voter has its benifits

  I was able to take my time and google the judges as I went down the ballot. I wouldn't have voted for or against if I didn't know about them.

  by sfflyman on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 11:52:01 AM PDT

  •  i'm permenent absentee as well.

    Can't trust those damn machines.
    However, I was pressed for time to get the ballot in on time because...

    well... i had a lot going on.

    It's shameful, but in retrospect it looks like I made ok choices.

    which is good!

    -C.

    by Neutron on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 01:05:50 PM PDT

•  On Prop 83

  I hear a lot of people share your concerns. Do you think it might be defeated? We have to fight like hell to keep anyone from being tagged with GPS. Never forget 1984 people!!!!

  by dragon695 on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 11:55:10 AM PDT

  •  I cannot believe...

    that the Libertarians aren't up at arms at this?

    It's so ridiculous, I mean the child molestor thing is such a "gimme" issue, because who is going to fight for their rights, you know?

    It's total big brother nonsense though!

    -C.

    by Neutron on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 01:06:37 PM PDT

•  I agree (mostly)

  Arnold is such a joke.  We really need a serious leader who can think through issues in an intelligent way.  Arnold would do fine as a game show host, or maybe front man for a big company, but he is WAY over his head as Governor.

  Garadmendi is stable, sold.  McClintock is a gadfly.  Should be game, set, match before it begins.

  I agree that Debra Bowen is really intelligent and full of energy and ideas, but McPherson is by far the best thing the GOP have this year.  When he was in the Senate, the Democratic leader appointed him Chair of a Committee.  How often does THAT happen.

  I wish we had something better than Bustamente for IC.  I think it is an important office and it seems that both candidates are interested in getting elected to something--but have no real interest in serving as IC.

  Regarding initiatives, there is only one that I could support, and it isn't on the ballot: Reapportionment reform.

  If we had fair reapportionment right now, with a boatload of competitive congressional districts, there would be absolutely no question that Democrats win control of the House.

  Some of the propositions look alluring, but initiatives are a really lousy way to legislate.  That's why we have a legislature.  I know that sounds over simplified, but there is so much hidden crap in every initiative.  All the authors swing for the fences and we end up with horrible unintended consequences.

  by fmrgop on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 12:05:12 PM PDT

  •  I agree initiatives are a lousy way to legislate.

    in fact, I think I ranted about that earlier.

    My old rule of thumb was to read all of the propositions and arguments once, and if I didn't understand it the first time... as a fairly educated guy... then I voted no!

    But please, please, please consider voting yes for Clean Money and Clean Energy.

    Those are so damn important.

    we do need real reapportionment reform too... no more "seats for life", let's get competitive people!

    -C.

    by Neutron on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 01:08:43 PM PDT

•  eminent domain is _not_BS_

  I agree with most all of your positions but just want to add that eminent domain is not BS. There are bad uses, abuses, of it but that doesn't mean it is always bad.

  It can be an invaluable tool for making cities more livable. Taking it away can hurt the good guys worse than the bad guys.

  by joel3000 on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 12:06:25 PM PDT

  •  Agreed

    This practice has a very bad history of being used for blatent gentrification. I'm all for urban renewal, but I will not stand for it if it is done at the expense of the poor and minorities. People have a right to affordable housing and not be pushed out of their homes because some asshole wants to build McCondos, McOffices, or some fucking stadium.

    by dragon695 on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 12:20:42 PM PDT

    •  Where I live

      Where I live it's often used to protect farmland and wetlands from development.

      The goal of the guy behind this proposition has nothing to do with protecting small property owners from developer land grabs. It has everything to do with protecting large property owners from having to be concerned with the public good.

      by joel3000 on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 07:46:16 PM PDT

  •  It *can* be.

    I agree, but like almost any kind of sweeping power it can and is sorely abused.

    I don't think that's what the framers envisioned when they were founding this country. I mean stem cells and choice were inconceivable, but seizing of land was something they understood very well.

    This proposition is not the way to do it though!
    I hope you agree with that.

    -C.

    by Neutron on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 01:10:23 PM PDT

    •  I do

      I agree with you. Eminent domain is a double edged sword, just like government. Because of my research field I have some familiarity with both sides of the issue. I cannot make a blanket condemnation of it because i know it can do good things, like save wetlands and preserve habitat.  

      The guy behind this proposition only gives a wink about small property owners in this case because it is in his favor to do so.

      by joel3000 on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 07:54:05 PM PDT

•  The Death Penalty

  California is usually always ahead of the curve. Why can't you guys abolish this barbaric practice?

  by dragon695 on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 12:07:31 PM PDT

  •  that's actually a great idea.

    There are a lot of Religious Fundamentalist types who I agree with almost nothing about, that would totally go for it.

    That's a great idea, plus... you know...
    it'd be nice to act civilized and not kill people too.

    -C.

    by Neutron on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 01:11:43 PM PDT

•  woohoo goooooo 89!

  God I hope that one passes.

  by VoteHarder on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 12:15:32 PM PDT

  •  89 might be THE most important thing on there.

    hands down.

    -C.

    by Neutron on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 01:12:39 PM PDT

•  Voting no on 86

  And won't vote for Bustamonte.

  End of ballot.

  by SecondComing on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 12:21:57 PM PDT

•  I agree on most

  I agree with most of your positions though I'm a bit more forgiving to Peter Camejo because Angelides simply hasn't made a strong enough case for why I shouldn't vote my conscience, and given that I think Arnold has it completely locked up. I'd love to see some sort of miracle, but not enough to bet my vote on it. The governator made a left turn on some important issues including global warming and hasn't repeated his mistakes of 2005, when he alienated just about everyone. I wish we had run Arianna Huffington instead. Unfortunately, I'm represented by Tom Lantos and will toss a protest vote somewhere in that election, same with Feinstein.

  I'm going to spend the weekend working on a few races including the Pombo race. I think that California is not going to show the wave that will engulf the nation, but there are a few house races that we might be able to pull out of the bag. This year I've think that where we fall short it will not be due to Republican dirty tricks or misleading ads, except on the propositions. In some cases we simply didn't run a vigorous enough campaign. Most of our choices are no-brainers. Most of the outcomes have already been determined. But if we work hard and get out the vote we have a chance to succeed with some of the good propositions and knock down the bad ones.

  by MakeChessNotWar on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 11:26:33 PM PDT

•  this is like the third time i've referred back

  to this diary. thanks for typing it.

  also, I see that 46 comments are here, and since 47 is my alma mater's lucky number by tradition, i will make the 47th comment. maybe its good luck for the election tomorrow.

  i hope prop 87 passes real bad!!

  by ucla grad102 on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 11:21:47 PM PDT