Refutation of the Rogers Brown 76% figure

[elperromagico]

I posted this in a thread, but I think some people might have
missed it:

A lot of Republicans have been claiming that Janice Rogers
Brown was elected by 76% of California voters in 1998. But
this is a half-truth at best.

In California, nominees for the Supreme Court do not run
against opponents; the vote is either For or Against. 

From http://vote98.ss.ca.gov/Final/sov/SOV49-51.pdf

8,621,121 Votes Cast

Candidate           For          Against      NoVote          
       
Janice R Brown      4,376,553    1,389,053    2,855,515
                    (50.77%)     (16.11%)   (33.12%)          
       

Counting all 8,621,121 votes cast in California, one does not
see a groundswell of support for Brown. Rather, one sees her
pulling out a narrow victory against the 49.23% who either
didn't want her or didn't care enough about her nomination to
vote one way or the other.

In fact, of all the four justices up for election that year,
Brown had the highest "non-vote":

Chief Justice George: 2,452,648 
Justice Brown: 2,855,515 
Justice Chin: 2,551,934 
Justice Mosk: 2,723,193

The "76%" figure only comes up when you don't count
the nearly 3,000,000 people who voted neither for nor against
Brown.
   

[Isome]

1. needs a kick ...n/t

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uhhuh]

4. Shame!

You know we can't call patriotic Americans like Snotty a Freeper. That's against the rules. Besides, he's right, sort of. If we use Repuke logic, it is as fair to say she recieved 10% of the vote as it is to say she got 76%. The truth is, she got just a tad over 50%, but no Dems are saying she got 10%, and a lot of repukes are saying she got 76%. I think that is a point worth making. Way to go snotty! Thanks for proving the repukes are liars, and the Dems aren't. Welcome to DU!!

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dpibel]

9. Serious question

With all manner of respect, I ask:

Do you really not understand this analytic? That would be tragic.

Or are you just pretending not to understand? Which would be, I state with greatest respect for your well-considered viewpoint, merely contemptible.

[Dr Fate]

18. No, the courts gave "Care not Cash" back to the city council...

...and then they squashed it. They ruled that that program could not be enacted through referenda, but by an elected body...

I believe your facts are a bit off...

Newsome will probably get elected as a result.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

48. No, the courts gave it back to a VOTING ELECTED BODY

Once again, your "facts" are way off. Bush & Rush must be rubbing off on you.

[uhhuh]

31. I like the way you ignore points

And just keep on typing. The point was that the repuke statements that 76% of the VOTERS voted for her is just completly wrong. A LARGE percentage of VOTERS chose not to take a position on her. We are not talking about people who didn't show up. We are talking about people who went to the polls and ignored the question of her appointment. That percentage was a large percentage, and cannot be ignored or implied as support for her election. She did not reach these voters, so she effectively and actually was not supported by them. These certainly belong more in the negative column than the positive, since anyone who as a responsible citzen, does not take a position on an issue or a candidate due to uncertainty or lack of knowledge about a candidate or issue, would not just flip a coin and go thumbs up or thumbs down. If she had reached these voters, she would have either won or lost them. She didn't reach them, or failed to convince them. Since she runs unopposed, she loses them because she didn't get a message out to them either way.
We are not talking about removing her from the bench, or throwing out laws. We are talking about a misleading statement about her level of support in the state of California.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uhhuh]

47. Nope

The implication made was that she had 76% support of California voters. It may have even been stated that way precisely. I was very tired yesterday when it was being discussed. Although voters should get an understanding of the candidates, the fact that 33% took no position on her does not mean they were no longer voters. They voted, but not for her. The fact that they sat that issue out does not take them out of the equation. They are still California voters. The repukes cannot say truthfully that 76% of the voters supported her. If you are saying that the 33% who took no position de facto voted for her, then why aren't the rupukes saying it? It would be a stronger case. You know why they are not saying it? Because someone who heard that would probably look at the numbers and see it was bullshit.
How do you know that the voters who voted for or against her were informed? It is just as likely that people who generally support candidates who are women voted for her because she was a woman, and voters who get partisan voting guides with suggestions for candidates and positins on issues, just marked their ballots all the way through, or people who have a hard time being negative didn't just vote the affirmative for her election. The same could be true for those that voted against her.
I'm sure that all of those who took a position could have also been completely imformed about her and made a decision one way or the other, but it doesn't mean that they did any more than those who didn't take a position due to whatever conflict they had with making a choice. The voters who took no position are still part of the equation. If the repukes were honest they would say she got 50+% of the vote. I still say that the percentage of undecideds is still a factor and cannot be conceded to this candidate.
In polls of likely voters in 2004, there is a percentage of undecideds. Are these numbers to just be ignored, or should they just be given to one candidate or another? Since the chimp is in office now, should the undecideds just be assumed to be support for him?
(well,I'm sure you'd like that)

[Dr Fate]

11. That actually IS a good point...

the Repubs are acting like Californians really love her- most people never even heard of the gal till now.

Republicans like Conservative judges, DEMS like moderate to liberal ones. It's as simple as that.

I'm sure you hate the fact that DEMS are finally puting their foot down over all the GOP arm-twisting that has been going on since 9/11.

Now go fuck yourself.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

20. I dont gets it- you is 2 smart four me...

Standing up? No, I'm sitting down to you.

[ComerPerro]

6. It has to do with however you want to fuck with the numbers

Hell, people say that Arnold won by a wide margin,

That's true, seeing as he got the most votes of candidates that actually ran.

But I would consider a vote of "no" to recall as a vote for Davis. And "No" recieved more votes than "yes, Arnold" did.

So, when Republicans say that a majority elected Arnold, its not exactly true.

Republicans are extremely good at twisting numbers.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ComerPerro]

8. Oh, I get it

So those people who were voting "no" on the recall...

They didn't want Gray Davis in office?????

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trumad]

12. So Scotty

what's your opinion of election 2000?

[snottyscotty]

16. That's easy

While the election in California has its protocol, so does the national election for President. This is clearly outlined in the Constitution and makes no mention of popular vote. Instead, we have the Electoral College which "elects" the President. If this is something you don't like, the Constitution left you with the option of amending it. Talk to your representative.

[ComerPerro]

15. And all this time

I thought that you rightwingers wanted celebraties to stay out of politics.

[ComerPerro]

17. BTW

More people want Bush out than in. In fact, not enough people wanted Bush in to get him in the White House in the first place. Shit, he wouldn't have won the electoral college if 5 people didn't decide that the recounts would stop.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ComerPerro]

25. You just described exactly how Bush gives speeches

Did you ever notice that most of his time is spent campaigning, speaking to paid audiences who agree with him and worship him? Hell, even his "press conferences" are scripted. The only reason people still think he is a credible politician is due to his sound bytes, which are carefully written in to his speeches.

Now, to be fair, there is another reason people still think he is credible, and that is because of 9/11 and the "war" on terror. But, that is another issue.

[Dr Fate]

28. Remember when the media called Clinton "Campaigner in Cheif"

Why is the media not calling Bush that? He has already raised more money than Clinton did in his whole 8 years.

I'll bet Scotty still believes in Rush's narcotics induced notion of a "Liberal Media"...

[ComerPerro]

32. LOL

This is the most damning thing about 9/11, in my opinion.

It is amazing how much it benifitted him. No one questions him, he can spread perpetual war, he can accuse his critics of treason, and everyone is afraid to take him on because they don't want to look unpatriotic.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

49. Economy rebounding? Where is my raise? Why are my benifits cut?

WWhen does my rent & grocery bill get lowered???

Bush/media can tell voters all they want that "the economy is fine", but the media cant spin away an empty wallet.

[Norcom]

61. Rent? Groceries?

Could you explain to me how an improving, or even a booming economy like in the 90's would cause your rent and grocery expenses to go down?

[Dr Fate]

14. Arnold won because he's a pro-life, pro-gay MOVIE STAR

And if he had ran as a DEM, he would have won too. Why did Arnold refuse to debate davis anyway? What was he hiding???

All the analysis that "the voters have shown that they want Republican leadership" is BS. He got elected because he's an Movie Icon, not because he supports Bush on one or two economic issues...

Arnold also won because Repigs put up a couple of million to hire folks to get signatures- and they got paid for every sig obtained...

I always liked the guy myself, but I disagree with the recall- I would rather he waited until a real election, or that he ran as an independent.

It's late, so I'm sure the Mods have not banned you yet- Did I tell you to go fuck yourself yet?

[trumad]

21. So Scotty...

I'm guessing you think Bush won fair and square in 2000? No objections at all?

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

24. Except when he's laying on the carpet covered in pretzels and booze...

...other than those times, yes, he sits.

[ComerPerro]

27. Or at his ranch,

Or at Camp David (as he was for every weekend when we had the major combat in Iraq)

Or when he is on his annual monthlong vacation.

Or the eleven hours a day that he is asleep...

[Dr Fate]

30. The pig-farm that he purchased in late 1999...

And then the media helped him pretend that it was some family "ranch" that he always had, by never pointing that out.

Truth is, Rove had him buy it in 1999 for PR purposes. It's funny as hell whrn he "clears brush"- trying to copy Reagan's wood chopping hobby. What a fake.

[snottyscotty]

33. others

I could think of worse presidents to emulate.

[trumad]

35. Go ahead Scott...Tell us worse Presidents to emulate?

[snottyscotty]

39. Truman, for one

FDR is another.

[trumad]

42. Well Scott...I think as soon as the Mod's wake up you're history

nice little run though.... Now head back over to FR and JimRob!

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uhhuh]

36. Hold on everybody!!!!

He's about to whip out the Clenis!!!

[Dr Fate]

53. Republicans have a bizzare, homoerotic obsession with Cliton's penis

In fact, these "manly men" talked about it for about 8 years. I guess they had nothing better to do.

Never in my life have I seen so many grown "hetrosexuals" make another man's gentials the center of their life...


It would have been cool if they had helped Clinton fight terrorism instead of swinging from his nuts.

[ComerPerro]

38. That is a good point

Imagine if the next president decided to emulate the worst president of all time.

His first act would be to allow a massive terroist attack to occur, killing thousands of Americans. He would then swear to punish those repsonsible, but never really do anything to catch them. He would then proceede to piss off all of our allies, start a war with no end in sight, lie about another nation attempting to buy nuclear materials to develop and sell to terrorists, strip away at civil rights, give money to the rich and to CEOs, send the nation into unprecedented debts, lie nonstop right to the nation's face about matters of life and death, allow his criminal buddies to steal millions from thousands by committing insider trading, allow his Vice President's company a no-bid opportunity to make massive profits from the deaths of thousands, and call anyone who didn't completely agree with him unpatriotic.

You are right, there are worse presidents to emulate.


Or, even worse, suppose the next president did something far more treasonous. What if he got a blowjob from a woman who wasn't his wife, and then lied about the affair?

[snottyscotty]

41. ok

Or he could do nothing, as in 1993 when the guy made it into a criminal investigation to cover his own ass in case things didn't go right. Or he could blame it on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, as Billy boy did after the Cole bombing. The rest is too nonsensical to get into now.

[ComerPerro]

45. Yeah, lets not get into in now

That would just make my brain hurt.

Now, if you excuse me, I have to go now. I have to go get an abortion with my girlfriend, then I have to go pick up my welfare check and food stamps. I will use those to buy some alcohol and cigarettes, maybe some marijuana or crack too. After that, I will probably meet with a few of my unemployed communist friends, and we will have a discussion about how much we hate America, and who hates America the most. We might even burn a few flags, just for the hell of it.

Either that, or I have to go to work.

Once again, though, I would just like to point out one thing: For a hard working, industrious capitalist like yourself, you seem to have a fuckload of free time to sit here at odd hours of the morning and spout out your right wing bullshit.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

54. Your boy McCarthy died a sad, disgraced alcoholic...

...so I'm so sure your representation of him is accurate. Then again, little of what you post is accurate or true...

[Dr Fate]

50. Funny, for 8 years I never once heard the GOP take on terrorism...

...they were too busy obsessing over Clintons Genitals.

Now all of a sudden they blame it all on Clinton.

Tell me- which would have been more responsible- investigating Clinton's cock to the tune of 200 million bucks, or investigating terrorism?

[trumad]

26. So no objections?

Thought so.... You know the prob with lazy minded citizens with sweet short answers to complex questions is that we turn into a country guided by a lazy minded president!

Scott... I gotta say...If I was going to type the type of tripe your posting I'd do it in the wee hours too....Not many folks watching...Sorta like slipping under the radar!

[Dr Fate]

23. Scotty probably thinks the "tons" of WMD's are real too.

That's how boot-lickers are- they believe EVERYTHING that Bush/media tells them to believe. Hell- they worshipped Rush for years, and it turns out he was stoned out of his mind and abusing narcotics daily...

[trumad]

40. Here's Scotty's response to one of our DU'ers

in the "who's to poor to get a gold star" thread... The poster was stating that they would donate as soon as they found a job and are boy Scotty came back with this:

Here's an idea, get up off the couch and get a job. Try the above places first. If you don't find one today, look again tomorrow, but stop blaming somebody else (implicity) for your problems. I have two job offers on the table with no college degree. I am currently working and making good money, but now it is even better.

Way to go Scotty.....

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

51. I'm a capitalist and basically a moderate- I just hate liars...

...Liars who lie about POLICY. I could care less about Clinton's consensual sex.

[uhhuh]

52. Two job offers on the table

And he'll look at them after he finishes cleaning out the rat traps in the kitchen at 24hr drive thru fast food restaurant.
One is from walmart for an 80hr a week shift w/ no benefits, and the other is as a scab worker at a grocery store.

[FredScuttle]

60. Impli-City

Is that where the American Dream is? Are there good jobs there?

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Norcom]

62. Pro-Life?

Where did you get the idea that Arnold is pro-life?

[Gulf Coast J]

55. A couple thoughts

I really wish this thread hadn't been hijacked, because it could have been interesting...

While Brown had a higher 'no vote' than the other justices, she also had the second highest number of affirmative votes. She had the highest ration of yes:no votes of anyone.

Ronald M. George .......... 4,654,671 votes 75.5%
Janice R. Brown .......... 4,374,827 votes 76.0%
Ming William Chin .......... 4,202,086 votes 69.3%
Stanley Mosk .......... 4,156,879 votes 70.6%
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/smartvoter/1998nov/ca/state/court.html

From what I have read, there was no organized effort to oppose her confirmation in 1998, despite the fact that she is allegedly such a radical judge. You make a fair point that the overwhelming majority of Californians didn't outright support her. But by looking at the numbers she was about as popular as Supreme Court Justices come. I've been looked at PFAW and similar websites looking for evidence of her radicalism, but have found nothing but broad allegations. I'm inclined to believe that many are barking up the wrong tree in this case.

[msmcghee]

57. Look at the names on the ballot.

Simply by campaigning only to their own - all they had to do was make sure that repuke voters knew that she was one of them.

By not campaigning to the general public they could also be assured that many liberals would automatically pull the lever for the chick.

Most voters are not too concerned about judgeships. They assume that if they are running they must have been OK'd by the legal system which in normal times is not partisan.

So, for typically unengaged, centrist and left of center voters, this was just a chance to put a woman in the Cal SC.

Easy campaign.

[Gulf Coast J]

59. Then why didn't PFAW or the NAACP campaign against her then?

I've looked around some and everything I've read said there was no organized anti-Brown campaign in 1998. This is very surprising considering how terrible so many organizations consider her a terrible judge now.

[David__77]

58. I voted against her!

I was proud to do so.

[elperromagico]

63. Great Googily Moogily!

I leave DU at about 3 in the morning, and this thread has 3 replies.

I come back and there are 62 replies. I fear I have created a monster, and I wish I could destroy it.