The full quote is “What you proved tonight is that dollars don’t vote – you do.” See
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/david-brat-s-win-143742269.html
David Brat defeated Rep. Eric Cantor in the primary for the Republican nomination for the U.S. House District 7 in Virginia.
What was really proved is that elections are determined by who shows up and who doesn’t show up.
See also Politics: Don Givadam wins again.
I would like to amend my advice about voting with a more positive spin:
Always vote because every vote always counts. If you stay away you give the election away.
Showing posts with label Eric Cantor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Eric Cantor. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Politics: Don Givadam wins again
Many a commentator is making a big deal about Representative Eric Cantor’s loss to a “Tea Party” candidate in the Virginia Republican primary. But few look at how many actually voted.
From http://electionresults.virginia.gov/resultsSW.aspx?type=CON&map=CTY
Unoffical results 2014-06-11 15:22 EDT
Eric I. Cantor 28,902 44.45%
David A. Brat 36,120 55.55%
Total votes 65,022
However, there are 473,032 registered voters in Congressional District 7 which means that 13.75% of them voted for either Republican candidate. Assuming that these registered voters are evenly split between “Republicans” and “Democrats”, then we could say that 27.5% of the registered Republicans bothered to show up. Does that mean that 72.5% of the registered “Republicans” don’t care for either candidate or just plain don’t care to vote. If there are more “Republicans” than “Democrats”, the percent of “Republican” no-shows is even worse.
But, some who voted for Brat consider themselves “Democrats”. They voted for him to get rid of Cantor. See these admissions in the comments to http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/us/politics/after-eric-cantor-primary-defeat-house-republicans-take-stock.html These “crossover” voters are probably a tiny percent of those who bothered to show; still, their votes won’t be there for Brat in November. Also, how many Cantor supporters will be no shows in November?
I think we should get away from party primaries and have open primaries. Those who didn’t give time or a dime to a political party should not be choosing a party’s candidates.
No matter your political preference, the lesson here is:
Always vote because every vote always counts. If you stay away you give the election away.
See also "Dollars don't vote – you do" – David Brat.
From http://electionresults.virginia.gov/resultsSW.aspx?type=CON&map=CTY
Unoffical results 2014-06-11 15:22 EDT
Eric I. Cantor 28,902 44.45%
David A. Brat 36,120 55.55%
Total votes 65,022
However, there are 473,032 registered voters in Congressional District 7 which means that 13.75% of them voted for either Republican candidate. Assuming that these registered voters are evenly split between “Republicans” and “Democrats”, then we could say that 27.5% of the registered Republicans bothered to show up. Does that mean that 72.5% of the registered “Republicans” don’t care for either candidate or just plain don’t care to vote. If there are more “Republicans” than “Democrats”, the percent of “Republican” no-shows is even worse.
But, some who voted for Brat consider themselves “Democrats”. They voted for him to get rid of Cantor. See these admissions in the comments to http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/us/politics/after-eric-cantor-primary-defeat-house-republicans-take-stock.html These “crossover” voters are probably a tiny percent of those who bothered to show; still, their votes won’t be there for Brat in November. Also, how many Cantor supporters will be no shows in November?
I think we should get away from party primaries and have open primaries. Those who didn’t give time or a dime to a political party should not be choosing a party’s candidates.
No matter your political preference, the lesson here is:
Always vote because every vote always counts. If you stay away you give the election away.
See also "Dollars don't vote – you do" – David Brat.
Friday, March 01, 2013
Duh idea of the day – fair trial
"Oh, but bringing these brutes to justice in the jurisdictions where they commit their crimes would be unconstitutional, says Representative Eric Cantor, the House Majority leader. A jury of Indians, well — they’re incapable of giving a white man a fair trial. Such was the view expressed by Senator Charles Grassley, the mumble-voiced Iowa senator known for his 19th-century insight."
"Science and Sensibility", Timothy Egan, NYT, 2013-03-01.
Although Abraham Lincoln let stand some death sentences for the Sioux Uprising, he also commuted many more because he didn't think the evidence merited the conviction. Could it be that these pardoned red men did not get a fair trial by white juries? Can we be sure that those hung got fair trials?
In other words, according to Cantor and Grassley, it's OK for white men to rape red women, but not OK for red men or black men to get a fair trial for being accused of raping white women.
"Science and Sensibility", Timothy Egan, NYT, 2013-03-01.
Although Abraham Lincoln let stand some death sentences for the Sioux Uprising, he also commuted many more because he didn't think the evidence merited the conviction. Could it be that these pardoned red men did not get a fair trial by white juries? Can we be sure that those hung got fair trials?
In other words, according to Cantor and Grassley, it's OK for white men to rape red women, but not OK for red men or black men to get a fair trial for being accused of raping white women.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)