Effect of the election on the housing market

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The shrill stridulations of the hacks on the Left notwithstanding, this was a far larger victory than the Republican surge in 1994, and it sets the stage for a larger victory still.[/quote]

Gee, I’ve been accused of being partisan but this is a purely partisan post.

Democraphics are such that Republican can never be a majority in California.

The Tea Party is the Republican’s last stand against the forces of demographics. If that wasn’t true, then why did the Republicans need the Tea Party at all?

I’m sorry, but the right used their nuclear option and not for big gains. After that, they’ll be out of weapons.

In 2 years, and in 4 years and in 8 years, the old folks like die off and young blood will start voting.

Time will tell…. I’m willing to wait and see.

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]You folks check out the CA election results per county on a map…

For example:

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/maps/governor/

With the exception of san diego,orange,and San Luis Obispo, coastal bordering counties voted blue…It’s pretty interesting seeing this one a map….Inland, except Alpine and Imperial voted red…

Hmmm. There’s always talk about splitting the state between NorCal and SoCal.. I’m wondering if it would make more sense to split things between WestCal and EastCal :)[/quote]

I’ve said that, flu.

Poor areas vote Republican Red. Does that make sense? There is a redneck component to that; don’t you think?

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]You folks check out the CA election results per county on a map…

For example:

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/maps/governor/

With the exception of san diego,orange,and San Luis Obispo, coastal bordering counties voted blue…It’s pretty interesting seeing this one a map….Inland, except Alpine and Imperial voted red…

Hmmm. There’s always talk about splitting the state between NorCal and SoCal.. I’m wondering if it would make more sense to split things between WestCal and EastCal :)[/quote]

I’ve said that, flu.

Poor areas vote Republican Red. Does that make sense? There is a redneck component to that; don’t you think?

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]You folks check out the CA election results per county on a map…

For example:

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/maps/governor/

With the exception of san diego,orange,and San Luis Obispo, coastal bordering counties voted blue…It’s pretty interesting seeing this one a map….Inland, except Alpine and Imperial voted red…

Hmmm. There’s always talk about splitting the state between NorCal and SoCal.. I’m wondering if it would make more sense to split things between WestCal and EastCal :)[/quote]

I’ve said that, flu.

Poor areas vote Republican Red. Does that make sense? There is a redneck component to that; don’t you think?

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]You folks check out the CA election results per county on a map…

For example:

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/maps/governor/

With the exception of san diego,orange,and San Luis Obispo, coastal bordering counties voted blue…It’s pretty interesting seeing this one a map….Inland, except Alpine and Imperial voted red…

Hmmm. There’s always talk about splitting the state between NorCal and SoCal.. I’m wondering if it would make more sense to split things between WestCal and EastCal :)[/quote]

I’ve said that, flu.

Poor areas vote Republican Red. Does that make sense? There is a redneck component to that; don’t you think?

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]You folks check out the CA election results per county on a map…

For example:

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/maps/governor/

With the exception of san diego,orange,and San Luis Obispo, coastal bordering counties voted blue…It’s pretty interesting seeing this one a map….Inland, except Alpine and Imperial voted red…

Hmmm. There’s always talk about splitting the state between NorCal and SoCal.. I’m wondering if it would make more sense to split things between WestCal and EastCal :)[/quote]

I’ve said that, flu.

Poor areas vote Republican Red. Does that make sense? There is a redneck component to that; don’t you think?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The shrill stridulations of the hacks on the Left notwithstanding, this was a far larger victory than the Republican surge in 1994, and it sets the stage for a larger victory still.[/quote]

Gee, I’ve been accused of being partisan but this is a purely partisan post.

Democraphics are such that Republican can never be a majority in California.

The Tea Party is the Republican’s last stand against the forces of demographics. If that wasn’t true, then why did the Republicans need the Tea Party at all?

I’m sorry, but the right used their nuclear option and not for big gains. After that they be out of weapons.

In 2 years, and in 4 years and in 8 years, the old folks like die off and young blood will start voting.

Time will tell…. I’m willing to wait and see.[/quote]

Brian: Sorry, but you’re wrong, This isn’t partisan at all, and I largely didn’t vote Republican at all. I haven’t since 1996, as a matter of fact. Voted for Jerry Brown versus Meg Whitman, as I didn’t consider Whitman credible.

So, again, nope. And I’m largely echoing what the DEMOCRATIC strategists were saying. There was no GOP nuke option at play. If you choose to look at the FACTS, you saw a huge shift in demography, especially amongst Independents, away FROM the Dems. Massive White flight and, as much as you’d like to paint the opposition as ignorant rednecks, the mix includes large numbers of white collar, college educated voters.

Big Labor took devastating hits in previous strongholds like Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania and nearly all of the “goodwill” that Obama amassed in his run during the ’08 presidential run has evaporated. If you pay attention to the sums expended by Big Labor groups like SEIU and AFSCME (and they were amongst the leading spenders), they spent huge money and still lost.

I’m not crowing about the GOP at all, because I can honestly care less. They are NOT my party and haven’t been for about 15 years. But for you to try and paint this as anything other than what it was is delusional. There ain’t enough lipstick for that particular pig.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The shrill stridulations of the hacks on the Left notwithstanding, this was a far larger victory than the Republican surge in 1994, and it sets the stage for a larger victory still.[/quote]

Gee, I’ve been accused of being partisan but this is a purely partisan post.

Democraphics are such that Republican can never be a majority in California.

The Tea Party is the Republican’s last stand against the forces of demographics. If that wasn’t true, then why did the Republicans need the Tea Party at all?

I’m sorry, but the right used their nuclear option and not for big gains. After that they be out of weapons.

In 2 years, and in 4 years and in 8 years, the old folks like die off and young blood will start voting.

Time will tell…. I’m willing to wait and see.[/quote]

Brian: Sorry, but you’re wrong, This isn’t partisan at all, and I largely didn’t vote Republican at all. I haven’t since 1996, as a matter of fact. Voted for Jerry Brown versus Meg Whitman, as I didn’t consider Whitman credible.

So, again, nope. And I’m largely echoing what the DEMOCRATIC strategists were saying. There was no GOP nuke option at play. If you choose to look at the FACTS, you saw a huge shift in demography, especially amongst Independents, away FROM the Dems. Massive White flight and, as much as you’d like to paint the opposition as ignorant rednecks, the mix includes large numbers of white collar, college educated voters.

Big Labor took devastating hits in previous strongholds like Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania and nearly all of the “goodwill” that Obama amassed in his run during the ’08 presidential run has evaporated. If you pay attention to the sums expended by Big Labor groups like SEIU and AFSCME (and they were amongst the leading spenders), they spent huge money and still lost.

I’m not crowing about the GOP at all, because I can honestly care less. They are NOT my party and haven’t been for about 15 years. But for you to try and paint this as anything other than what it was is delusional. There ain’t enough lipstick for that particular pig.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The shrill stridulations of the hacks on the Left notwithstanding, this was a far larger victory than the Republican surge in 1994, and it sets the stage for a larger victory still.[/quote]

Gee, I’ve been accused of being partisan but this is a purely partisan post.

Democraphics are such that Republican can never be a majority in California.

The Tea Party is the Republican’s last stand against the forces of demographics. If that wasn’t true, then why did the Republicans need the Tea Party at all?

I’m sorry, but the right used their nuclear option and not for big gains. After that they be out of weapons.

In 2 years, and in 4 years and in 8 years, the old folks like die off and young blood will start voting.

Time will tell…. I’m willing to wait and see.[/quote]

Brian: Sorry, but you’re wrong, This isn’t partisan at all, and I largely didn’t vote Republican at all. I haven’t since 1996, as a matter of fact. Voted for Jerry Brown versus Meg Whitman, as I didn’t consider Whitman credible.

So, again, nope. And I’m largely echoing what the DEMOCRATIC strategists were saying. There was no GOP nuke option at play. If you choose to look at the FACTS, you saw a huge shift in demography, especially amongst Independents, away FROM the Dems. Massive White flight and, as much as you’d like to paint the opposition as ignorant rednecks, the mix includes large numbers of white collar, college educated voters.

Big Labor took devastating hits in previous strongholds like Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania and nearly all of the “goodwill” that Obama amassed in his run during the ’08 presidential run has evaporated. If you pay attention to the sums expended by Big Labor groups like SEIU and AFSCME (and they were amongst the leading spenders), they spent huge money and still lost.

I’m not crowing about the GOP at all, because I can honestly care less. They are NOT my party and haven’t been for about 15 years. But for you to try and paint this as anything other than what it was is delusional. There ain’t enough lipstick for that particular pig.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The shrill stridulations of the hacks on the Left notwithstanding, this was a far larger victory than the Republican surge in 1994, and it sets the stage for a larger victory still.[/quote]

Gee, I’ve been accused of being partisan but this is a purely partisan post.

Democraphics are such that Republican can never be a majority in California.

The Tea Party is the Republican’s last stand against the forces of demographics. If that wasn’t true, then why did the Republicans need the Tea Party at all?

I’m sorry, but the right used their nuclear option and not for big gains. After that they be out of weapons.

In 2 years, and in 4 years and in 8 years, the old folks like die off and young blood will start voting.

Time will tell…. I’m willing to wait and see.[/quote]

Brian: Sorry, but you’re wrong, This isn’t partisan at all, and I largely didn’t vote Republican at all. I haven’t since 1996, as a matter of fact. Voted for Jerry Brown versus Meg Whitman, as I didn’t consider Whitman credible.

So, again, nope. And I’m largely echoing what the DEMOCRATIC strategists were saying. There was no GOP nuke option at play. If you choose to look at the FACTS, you saw a huge shift in demography, especially amongst Independents, away FROM the Dems. Massive White flight and, as much as you’d like to paint the opposition as ignorant rednecks, the mix includes large numbers of white collar, college educated voters.

Big Labor took devastating hits in previous strongholds like Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania and nearly all of the “goodwill” that Obama amassed in his run during the ’08 presidential run has evaporated. If you pay attention to the sums expended by Big Labor groups like SEIU and AFSCME (and they were amongst the leading spenders), they spent huge money and still lost.

I’m not crowing about the GOP at all, because I can honestly care less. They are NOT my party and haven’t been for about 15 years. But for you to try and paint this as anything other than what it was is delusional. There ain’t enough lipstick for that particular pig.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The shrill stridulations of the hacks on the Left notwithstanding, this was a far larger victory than the Republican surge in 1994, and it sets the stage for a larger victory still.[/quote]

Gee, I’ve been accused of being partisan but this is a purely partisan post.

Democraphics are such that Republican can never be a majority in California.

The Tea Party is the Republican’s last stand against the forces of demographics. If that wasn’t true, then why did the Republicans need the Tea Party at all?

I’m sorry, but the right used their nuclear option and not for big gains. After that they be out of weapons.

In 2 years, and in 4 years and in 8 years, the old folks like die off and young blood will start voting.

Time will tell…. I’m willing to wait and see.[/quote]

Brian: Sorry, but you’re wrong, This isn’t partisan at all, and I largely didn’t vote Republican at all. I haven’t since 1996, as a matter of fact. Voted for Jerry Brown versus Meg Whitman, as I didn’t consider Whitman credible.

So, again, nope. And I’m largely echoing what the DEMOCRATIC strategists were saying. There was no GOP nuke option at play. If you choose to look at the FACTS, you saw a huge shift in demography, especially amongst Independents, away FROM the Dems. Massive White flight and, as much as you’d like to paint the opposition as ignorant rednecks, the mix includes large numbers of white collar, college educated voters.

Big Labor took devastating hits in previous strongholds like Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania and nearly all of the “goodwill” that Obama amassed in his run during the ’08 presidential run has evaporated. If you pay attention to the sums expended by Big Labor groups like SEIU and AFSCME (and they were amongst the leading spenders), they spent huge money and still lost.

I’m not crowing about the GOP at all, because I can honestly care less. They are NOT my party and haven’t been for about 15 years. But for you to try and paint this as anything other than what it was is delusional. There ain’t enough lipstick for that particular pig.

[Arraya]

Actually brian, poor people, in general, don’t vote – or at least in tiny percentages. Education, political leanings and socioeconomic status have nothing to do with gullibility. Most tea baggers are not poor either

[Arraya]

Actually brian, poor people, in general, don’t vote – or at least in tiny percentages. Education, political leanings and socioeconomic status have nothing to do with gullibility. Most tea baggers are not poor either

[Arraya]

Actually brian, poor people, in general, don’t vote – or at least in tiny percentages. Education, political leanings and socioeconomic status have nothing to do with gullibility. Most tea baggers are not poor either

[Arraya]

Actually brian, poor people, in general, don’t vote – or at least in tiny percentages. Education, political leanings and socioeconomic status have nothing to do with gullibility. Most tea baggers are not poor either

[Author]

Posts