CA-GOP: "Call us the 'Party of Yes'. Also, vote 'no' on Gov. Brown's tax bill"
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:54:58 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  CA-GOP: "Call us the 'Party of Yes'. Also, vote 'no' on Gov. Brown's tax bill"
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: CA-GOP: "Call us the 'Party of Yes'. Also, vote 'no' on Gov. Brown's tax bill"  (Read 4117 times)
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,044
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 06, 2012, 02:36:13 AM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 06, 2012, 03:34:25 AM »

     "Party of Yes" sounds weird, but it's still a positive branding move. I suspect that standing for negation doesn't exactly excite voters. Smiley
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,044
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 06, 2012, 03:54:03 AM »

     "Party of Yes" sounds weird, but it's still a positive branding move. I suspect that standing for negation doesn't exactly excite voters. Smiley

As the first paragraph of the article explains, this was a deliberate effort to counter their labeling by the CA Democrats as the 'Party of No'.  The problem is that their very first act as the 'Party of Yes' is to ask voters to say 'no' to Jerry Brown's tax proposition.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 06, 2012, 10:14:25 AM »

And the major reason Jerry wants more revenue is because he caved to the Dem legislature on doing much about public employee pensions, unlike Cuomo in NY.  No!
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 06, 2012, 11:07:23 AM »

Is he even getting his 8 or 12 point plan through or did he cave on that? I have a feeling this might fail.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 06, 2012, 11:18:11 AM »

Tax cuts are typically very popular among the public and perform very well at the ballot box.  These tax hikes can be avoided simply by reducing the number of excess public sector employees and other forms of government spending.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 06, 2012, 11:25:04 AM »

I also wonder whether the GOP missed a trick by not putting a change to 401k pension plans on the ballot. Though I'm not sure if that would be legal. I don't mind the rich paying more but this is a bit much and the background of what happened is infuriating as well.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,614


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 06, 2012, 02:47:19 PM »
« Edited: May 06, 2012, 02:50:38 PM by ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ »

Polling shows that Jerry Brown's tax hike for the rich is in good shape. The Munger tax hike will fail, but that's not Jerry Brown's.

Jerry Brown's Prop does raise sales tax by 0.5%, but that doesn't affect rich people so the Republican party doesn't give a crap about that.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 06, 2012, 03:48:04 PM »

Polling shows that Jerry Brown's tax hike for the rich is in good shape. The Munger tax hike will fail, but that's not Jerry Brown's.

Jerry Brown's Prop does raise sales tax by 0.5%, but that doesn't affect rich people so the Republican party doesn't give a crap about that.

I thought the sales tax hike was reduced to 0.25% in the compromise. I liked his original plan where the top rate only went up by 2%. I would have voted for that. This might be counterproductive and with no real pension reforms it is just wrong.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,614


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 06, 2012, 03:59:42 PM »

Polling shows that Jerry Brown's tax hike for the rich is in good shape. The Munger tax hike will fail, but that's not Jerry Brown's.

Jerry Brown's Prop does raise sales tax by 0.5%, but that doesn't affect rich people so the Republican party doesn't give a crap about that.

I thought the sales tax hike was reduced to 0.25% in the compromise. I liked his original plan where the top rate only went up by 2%. I would have voted for that. This might be counterproductive and with no real pension reforms it is just wrong.

OK, you're right. This is the one that had the signatures submitted.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 06, 2012, 04:19:53 PM »

YES, we will vote NO on that bill. Tongue
Logged
Nichlemn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 06, 2012, 06:07:28 PM »

Both "Party of No" and "Party of Yes" are stupid rhetoric. Both implicitly assume the golden mean fallacy, that compromising is necessarily good, or even just occasionally voting for something the other side produces regardless of whether it represents a compromise.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,614


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 06, 2012, 07:00:45 PM »

Both "Party of No" and "Party of Yes" are stupid rhetoric. Both implicitly assume the golden mean fallacy, that compromising is necessarily good, or even just occasionally voting for something the other side produces regardless of whether it represents a compromise.

Agreed, compromising for compromises sakes doesn't work so well. For example the Catholic Centrist party and Chamberlain look pretty stupid in retrospect for compromising with Hitler.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 07, 2012, 12:36:03 AM »

     "Party of Yes" sounds weird, but it's still a positive branding move. I suspect that standing for negation doesn't exactly excite voters. Smiley

As the first paragraph of the article explains, this was a deliberate effort to counter their labeling by the CA Democrats as the 'Party of No'.  The problem is that their very first act as the 'Party of Yes' is to ask voters to say 'no' to Jerry Brown's tax proposition.

     Addressing the self-evident does not interest me. Commenting on the surprising competence of the CAGOP's strategy (even if it is really rather hypocritical) does.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,614


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 07, 2012, 12:38:55 AM »

     "Party of Yes" sounds weird, but it's still a positive branding move. I suspect that standing for negation doesn't exactly excite voters. Smiley

As the first paragraph of the article explains, this was a deliberate effort to counter their labeling by the CA Democrats as the 'Party of No'.  The problem is that their very first act as the 'Party of Yes' is to ask voters to say 'no' to Jerry Brown's tax proposition.

     Addressing the self-evident does not interest me. Commenting on the surprising competence of the CAGOP's strategy (even if it is really rather hypocritical) does.

The California GOP is basically a troll party. They wanted redistricting by a special commission. We got redistricting by that commission. And now they got this piece of crap on the ballot.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Referendum_on_the_State_Senate_Redistricting_Plan_%282012%29
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 07, 2012, 01:01:49 AM »

     "Party of Yes" sounds weird, but it's still a positive branding move. I suspect that standing for negation doesn't exactly excite voters. Smiley

As the first paragraph of the article explains, this was a deliberate effort to counter their labeling by the CA Democrats as the 'Party of No'.  The problem is that their very first act as the 'Party of Yes' is to ask voters to say 'no' to Jerry Brown's tax proposition.

     Addressing the self-evident does not interest me. Commenting on the surprising competence of the CAGOP's strategy (even if it is really rather hypocritical) does.

The California GOP is basically a troll party. They wanted redistricting by a special commission. We got redistricting by that commission. And now they got this piece of crap on the ballot.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Referendum_on_the_State_Senate_Redistricting_Plan_%282012%29

So if it gets rejected what happens? They just have to draw another map? I think the Republicans are realizing they could have bitched and moaned and got a map passed that was a bipartisan gerrymander. Especially with only 40 seats, many become marginal and that reduces the margin of error the Republicans have.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,044
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 07, 2012, 01:34:16 AM »

     "Party of Yes" sounds weird, but it's still a positive branding move. I suspect that standing for negation doesn't exactly excite voters. Smiley

As the first paragraph of the article explains, this was a deliberate effort to counter their labeling by the CA Democrats as the 'Party of No'.  The problem is that their very first act as the 'Party of Yes' is to ask voters to say 'no' to Jerry Brown's tax proposition.

     Addressing the self-evident does not interest me. Commenting on the surprising competence of the CAGOP's strategy (even if it is really rather hypocritical) does.

Contradicting their brand new slogan at its press launch doesn't really strike me as very competent, tbh.
Logged
greenforest32
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,625


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 07, 2012, 02:13:57 AM »

Once the 2/3 supermajority requirement for tax increases is eliminated/reduced or Democrats get 2/3 of the seats in the state legislature (this is a possibility with the new maps as I understand it which is why they petitioned to overturn the state senate map), it will really be over for the CA-GOP.

They will have to move to the left.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 07, 2012, 02:23:39 AM »

    "Party of Yes" sounds weird, but it's still a positive branding move. I suspect that standing for negation doesn't exactly excite voters. Smiley

As the first paragraph of the article explains, this was a deliberate effort to counter their labeling by the CA Democrats as the 'Party of No'.  The problem is that their very first act as the 'Party of Yes' is to ask voters to say 'no' to Jerry Brown's tax proposition.

     Addressing the self-evident does not interest me. Commenting on the surprising competence of the CAGOP's strategy (even if it is really rather hypocritical) does.

Contradicting their brand new slogan at its press launch doesn't really strike me as very competent, tbh.

     It's pretty good for them; at least they recognized the problem & attacked it. In general, their operations have been a strategic trainwreck for years. They've struggled to maintain what little power they've had, while eliminating any future opportunities for growth in the process.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,614


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 07, 2012, 02:33:58 AM »

    "Party of Yes" sounds weird, but it's still a positive branding move. I suspect that standing for negation doesn't exactly excite voters. Smiley

As the first paragraph of the article explains, this was a deliberate effort to counter their labeling by the CA Democrats as the 'Party of No'.  The problem is that their very first act as the 'Party of Yes' is to ask voters to say 'no' to Jerry Brown's tax proposition.

     Addressing the self-evident does not interest me. Commenting on the surprising competence of the CAGOP's strategy (even if it is really rather hypocritical) does.

Contradicting their brand new slogan at its press launch doesn't really strike me as very competent, tbh.

     It's pretty good for them; at least they recognized the problem & attacked it. In general, their operations have been a strategic trainwreck for years. They've struggled to maintain what little power they've had, while eliminating any future opportunities for growth in the process.

The CA GOP's problem is that they are a bunch of extreme lunatics. They probably wouldn't be so dead if they took a page from the Rhode Island Republicans and stopped being extreme right-wingers in a liberal state.

Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: May 07, 2012, 03:31:47 AM »

     "Party of Yes" sounds weird, but it's still a positive branding move. I suspect that standing for negation doesn't exactly excite voters. Smiley

As the first paragraph of the article explains, this was a deliberate effort to counter their labeling by the CA Democrats as the 'Party of No'.  The problem is that their very first act as the 'Party of Yes' is to ask voters to say 'no' to Jerry Brown's tax proposition.

     Addressing the self-evident does not interest me. Commenting on the surprising competence of the CAGOP's strategy (even if it is really rather hypocritical) does.

Contradicting their brand new slogan at its press launch doesn't really strike me as very competent, tbh.

     It's pretty good for them; at least they recognized the problem & attacked it. In general, their operations have been a strategic trainwreck for years. They've struggled to maintain what little power they've had, while eliminating any future opportunities for growth in the process.

The CA GOP's problem is that they are a bunch of extreme lunatics. They probably wouldn't be so dead if they took a page from the Rhode Island Republicans and stopped being extreme right-wingers in a liberal state.



     Yeah, they need to nominate better candidates who are better suited to the politics of the state. When you choose Carly Fiorina over Tom Campbell, something is very wrong.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,614


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: May 07, 2012, 04:03:03 AM »

     "Party of Yes" sounds weird, but it's still a positive branding move. I suspect that standing for negation doesn't exactly excite voters. Smiley

As the first paragraph of the article explains, this was a deliberate effort to counter their labeling by the CA Democrats as the 'Party of No'.  The problem is that their very first act as the 'Party of Yes' is to ask voters to say 'no' to Jerry Brown's tax proposition.

     Addressing the self-evident does not interest me. Commenting on the surprising competence of the CAGOP's strategy (even if it is really rather hypocritical) does.

Contradicting their brand new slogan at its press launch doesn't really strike me as very competent, tbh.

     It's pretty good for them; at least they recognized the problem & attacked it. In general, their operations have been a strategic trainwreck for years. They've struggled to maintain what little power they've had, while eliminating any future opportunities for growth in the process.

The CA GOP's problem is that they are a bunch of extreme lunatics. They probably wouldn't be so dead if they took a page from the Rhode Island Republicans and stopped being extreme right-wingers in a liberal state.



     Yeah, they need to nominate better candidates who are better suited to the politics of the state. When you choose Carly Fiorina over Tom Campbell, something is very wrong.

Well, the state legislature in particular.  For some reason Abel Maldonado was seen as some sort of liberal because he extracted a very high price from the Democrats for his vote for the budget while every other Republican voted against it. Of course they don't have their own budget. They're just the party of no, trying to obstruct. Good think voters scrapped that stupid 2/3rds majority to pass a simple budget. 2/3rds is still needed to raise taxes, though.
Logged
morgieb
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,625
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: May 07, 2012, 07:56:52 AM »

    "Party of Yes" sounds weird, but it's still a positive branding move. I suspect that standing for negation doesn't exactly excite voters. Smiley

As the first paragraph of the article explains, this was a deliberate effort to counter their labeling by the CA Democrats as the 'Party of No'.  The problem is that their very first act as the 'Party of Yes' is to ask voters to say 'no' to Jerry Brown's tax proposition.

     Addressing the self-evident does not interest me. Commenting on the surprising competence of the CAGOP's strategy (even if it is really rather hypocritical) does.

Contradicting their brand new slogan at its press launch doesn't really strike me as very competent, tbh.

     It's pretty good for them; at least they recognized the problem & attacked it. In general, their operations have been a strategic trainwreck for years. They've struggled to maintain what little power they've had, while eliminating any future opportunities for growth in the process.

The CA GOP's problem is that they are a bunch of extreme lunatics. They probably wouldn't be so dead if they took a page from the Rhode Island Republicans and stopped being extreme right-wingers in a liberal state.



Why are the ideologies for the Rhode Island parties so similar?
Logged
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,828
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: May 07, 2012, 08:14:58 PM »

my question is why has the state shifted to the democrats so much at the presidential level? In my 1974 Almanac of American Politics, a full 56% of the voters were registered democrats. Now its down to 44%. The number of DTS voters has also increased from 7% in the 1970s to the current 26%.

One thing someone on redracinghorses said was that California democrats are much more partisan now then they were back then and that Reagan always enjoyed support in heavily democratic areas (by registration) such as Bell Gardens, Huntington Park, El Monte etc.
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: May 08, 2012, 12:51:08 AM »

Partisan registration isn't particularly meaningful.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.064 seconds with 12 queries.