Primary Night in California [Updated]
[guest post by JVW]
Polls in California have closed and it’s time to tabulate the vote. You can follow live at the Secretary of State’s website. Here as of this moment (9:37 pm update) are some notable results:
Governor: Jerry Brown winning 55.3% of vote. Battle for second between GOP contenders Neel Kashkari and Tim Donnelly is close, with Kashkari at 17.6% to Donnelly’s 14.8%. Cindy Sheehan (yes, that Cindy Sheehan) is at 1.2% for the Peace & Freedom Party.
Secretary of State: This is one of the only statewide offices where a Republican might stand a chance to win in November. Right now, party favorite Pete Peterson is polling at 29.8%, slightly ahead of state senator Alex Padilla at 28.7%. Fun fact: state senator Leland Yee, who has been indicted on charges of gun-running and accepting bribes is bringing in a respectable 10.7%. Hooray for the low information voter!
Controller: Amazingly enough, two Republicans are so far leading the field, Ashley Swearengin (23.7%) and David Evans (23.0%) currently edging out Betty Yee (21.8%) and assembly speaker John A. Perez (20.0%). Should Perez finish in fourth, or even miss qualifying for November’s runoff by finishing third, it would have to be seen as a massive rebuke for the state legislative leadership. As speaker, Perez is arguably one of the three most powerful politicians in the state.
State Senate District 26: I reported on this one earlier so that everyone could share my excitement in Sandra Fluke’s maiden (whoops, poor choice of words?) run for political office. This is a neck-and-neck race with Sandy at 17.6% trailing fellow Democrat Ben Allen at 23.2% and law professor Seth Stodder, with no party preference, at 19.5%. Still in the running are former assembly member Betsy Bulter (Dem) at 16.3% and Manhattan Beach mayor Amy Howorth (Dem) at 14.3%. Under the open primary system, the top two finishers will move on to face each other in November.
The State Senate District 26 race featured seven Democrats and the one no party preference candidate. No Republican made it on the ballot, which is every bit as much an indictment of the local party as it is of Democrat dominance in this state.
U.S. House of Representatives, District 33: This is my congressional district, most recently represented by the retiring Henry Waxman (don’t get me started). The odds-on favorite has been my current state senator, Ted Lieu, a decent and patriotic sort of guy who suffers from the sin of unbridled ambition and whose every action reminds you that he aspires to move rapidly up the political ladder by pandering to every conceivable Democrat constituency. It was assumed that he would run for California Secretary of State, but changed his mind when Waxman suddenly announced his retirement. Surprisingly, he is running second as of right now to Republican Elan Carr, a criminal gang prosecutor. Nipping at Lieu’s heels is former Los Angeles City Councilwoman and mayoral candidate Wendy Gruel. Knocking Lieu out of the top two runoff would be a huge deal, though I think the prognosticators expect him to pull through. Flaky New Age guru Marianne Williamson is running a left-wing campaign with no party preference and thus far drawing 8.6% of the vote, so it would be awesome if she is responsible for denying Lieu a top two finish.
I wasn’t a big fan and didn’t vote for it, but I think I am starting to warm up to the open primary where everyone runs and the top two go on to face each other in the fall. Hopefully there will be some interesting results to discuss tomorrow.
UPDATE [10:45 pm] In the Controller’s race Betty Yee is gaining ground on the two Republicans, so she’ll probably slip in to the final two. It wouldn’t surprise me if John Perez does as well, what with the – ahem – success that Democrats traditionally have had in finding extra ballots while tallying up the vote in close races.
Yeah, it’s a California-centric blog post. Sorry.JVW (feb406) — 6/3/2014 @ 10:05 pm
you misspelled #Failiforniaredc1c4 (abd49e) — 6/3/2014 @ 10:14 pm
please to be getting with the program…
I hope you’ll be able to dispense with Sandra tonight.elissa (76d201) — 6/3/2014 @ 10:23 pm
there was a primary today?
i made dumplings
but i did not dispense with Sandrahappyfeet (8ce051) — 6/3/2014 @ 10:27 pm
Would you prefer the sentiment of “I hope you’ll be able to dispose of Sandra”?
is that more better?elissa (76d201) — 6/3/2014 @ 10:32 pm
me i hope Sandra is very happily disposed
and who tf is Sandra
are you talking about flukey fluke?
i need a drinkhappyfeet (8ce051) — 6/3/2014 @ 10:37 pm
If two Republicans face off for the Controller job, expect editorials trashing the new system and someone to sue to allow write-ins.
BTW, there’s a write-in attempt to get a Republican on the runoff for Board of Equalization (3rd district), where Jerome Horton is currently running unopposed. There is apparently a floor number they have to beat.Kevin M (b357ee) — 6/3/2014 @ 10:40 pm
If Fluke were to win, I would have her as myKevin M (b357ee) — 6/3/2014 @ 10:46 pm
slutstate senator and Maxine as Congressthing. To top it off, I’d have the offspring of old pol Yvonne Braithwaite as my assemblyperson. I wonder if she lives in the distrct; her mom forgot that detail, representing South Central while living in Brentwood.
i poured a brandyhappyfeet (8ce051) — 6/3/2014 @ 10:48 pm
if i wake up to a headline tomorrow what reads FLUKE ON TOP
I’m a be a broken lil pikachu
all of this is just so very very wronghappyfeet (8ce051) — 6/3/2014 @ 10:50 pm
We could have just gone for broke: Cindy Sheehan as governor, Sandra Fluke in the state senate, Marianne Williamson as my congressman. It would all work out so perfectly, what with Jane Fonda coming to UCLA to speak at graduation in a couple of weeks.JVW (feb406) — 6/3/2014 @ 10:53 pm
I’m thinking that if Kashkari is the (R) running for governor, I’ll vote a straight-ticket Republican ballot…with the sole exception of Governor.
Here’s a hint, Bush, Romney, et al: I’m voting for principles, not parties.
And I’d love it if the state controller race ends up being Evans vs Swearingen. (Would the dem’s end up being less fond of jungle-system primaries?)
Looks like Ron Gold is second for AG at present, with 12.9% vs Wyman @ 11.1% and Orly Taitz at 3.2% (glad to see people didn’t waste too many votes on her).
Might see someone endorsed by the American Independent Party on the ballot.
Brief summary of AG challenger positions as far as I can tell: King is the RINO, Haggerty the stock conservative, Gold is conservative advocating immigration reform, Wyman the conservative blowhard (arguing that capital punishment should be on the table for Yee “because what he did was murder”); Jaech is the stock libertarian (legalize everything); Orly Taitz we all know.Ibidem (3ede5e) — 6/3/2014 @ 11:12 pm
Jane Fonda coming to UCLA to speak at graduation in a couple of weeks.
If they are quick, they can have Bergdahl introduce her as an American Hero.Kevin M (b357ee) — 6/3/2014 @ 11:22 pm
I’m voting for principles, not parties.
Then maybe you shouldn’t throw around the RINO label, seeing as how you’re not a Republican anymore.Kevin M (b357ee) — 6/3/2014 @ 11:25 pm
Chris McDaniel is up by 2100 votes, out of 300,000 total, with 99.52% counted. Looks like Thad’s gone thud.Kevin M (b357ee) — 6/3/2014 @ 11:28 pm
Damn. There’s a runoff system in MS.Kevin M (b357ee) — 6/3/2014 @ 11:30 pm
Damn. There’s a runoff system in MS.
Yeah, and with a third candidate taking 1.5% or whatever and preventing McDaniel or Cochran from reaching 50%, we all get to suffer through this intra-party squabble for another few weeks.JVW (feb406) — 6/3/2014 @ 11:33 pm
These runoffs are all left overs from when the Solid South was run by the Klan, and the runoffs ensured FTMP that an insurgent couldn’t succeed.askeptic (8ecc78) — 6/3/2014 @ 11:38 pm
The Dems are notorious for running incumbent protection rackets, like their current emphasis on restricting contributions and speech (more McCain-Feingold).
i thought a run-off meant this establishment p.o.s. cochranturd got flushed Mr. JVW
member how McCain (Meghan’s coward p.o.s. brainwashed daddy) HYPHEN Feingold…
used to be understood as McCain-Feingold-Cochran?
I’m like a goddamn elephanthappyfeet (8ce051) — 6/3/2014 @ 11:38 pm
“I’m like a goddamn elephant”
Mr. Feets – Wait, I thought you just said you were like a poo flinging monkey what wanted people to touch its belly on another thread.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/3/2014 @ 11:51 pm
i contain multitudes Mr. daley
not unlike Mr. Whitman
I’m just never gonna be as famous
and you know what?
I’m ok with that
I made dumplingshappyfeet (8ce051) — 6/3/2014 @ 11:56 pm
Looks like Jorgensen didn’t make it in U.S. House 52.Ed from SFV (3400a5) — 6/4/2014 @ 12:08 am
I’m sorry. I didn’t vote. They probably wouldn’t count my vote anyway. I’m not crazy enough.Mike K (cd7278) — 6/4/2014 @ 5:14 am
Um, a question for/from those outside CA. Is there just one general primary, and the top two run against each other in the election, as opposed to Dem and repubs as (most?) other states do?MD in Philly (f9371b) — 6/4/2014 @ 5:22 am
I wonder how this will affect turnout.Michael Ejercito (becea5) — 6/4/2014 @ 6:58 am
(a) I’m disappointed by Dan Schnurr’s poor showing for SecState.
(b) It looks like for contested races (Controller, SecState), Republican turnout is 4-5% higher than I would have expected. I’m sure Republican activists will claim it’s because the state is turning Republican, while Democratic activists will claim it’s because of turnout. It’s an interesting thing, nonetheless.
(c ) At present writing, the Controller race isn’t going to be two Republicans, but that could still change back. If it does turn out that way, I hope the Democratic activists take it as a signal that they should vote in the primary, rather than as a reason to get the rules changed. [Disclaimer: I voted for the proposition which set up this system, and I think it’s overall a good one.]
(d) It’s nice to see Orly Taitz get creamed, again.aphrael (b6023b) — 6/4/2014 @ 7:03 am
MD in Philly – yes. California and Washington have “jungle primaries”. All candidates appear on the same primary ballot, and then the two candidates with the most votes appear on the general election ballot. This can lead to both candidates being from the same party.
This system was adopted by vote in the 2010 election and this is the first general *statewide* election conducted under those rules (although the 2012 election used these rules for legislative races and the US Senate race).
In the controller race, for example, there were 2 republicans and 2 democrats and a smattering of third party candidates, and while the leading republican got 24%, the two democrats and the second-place republican are clustered around 21%. It’s not clear – and won’t be for weeks – who the actual second-place finisher is.aphrael (b6023b) — 6/4/2014 @ 7:06 am
I’m no longer in California, so I didn’t vote in this election, and I’m nto following California politics closely enough to be *sure* how I would have voted, but my top-level guess is that I would have voted: Brown (governor), Korevarr (lt. governor; I can’t stand Newsom), Schnur (SecState), Gold (AG; I can’t stand Harris); Chiang (treasurer) and yes on both ballot measures.
But like I said, that’s just a guess based on very high level knowledge from across the country – my actual votes may have been different had I been there.aphrael (b6023b) — 6/4/2014 @ 7:10 am
They assumed (correctly, as it turned out) that Governor Brown would get over half the vote.Michael Ejercito (becea5) — 6/4/2014 @ 7:12 am
LA uses this same system rtoo. (Governor Jindal won the primary in a landslide.)Michael Ejercito (becea5) — 6/4/2014 @ 7:13 am
> They assumed (correctly, as it turned out) that Governor Brown would get over half the vote.
Because the governor’s race is the only one that matters to them? I don’t want to call them idiots, but I kinda want to call them idiots.aphrael (b6023b) — 6/4/2014 @ 7:13 am
JVW, your update seems to imply a belief in shenanigans. I don’t think that’s *necessary*.
It’s not uncommon for there to be hundreds of thousands of ballots which aren’t counted on election day – absentee ballots returned the day of the election, and provisional ballots.
It’s been known for decades that early absentees (eg, absentee ballots returned before election day) tend to represent an electorate which is more conservative than the general electorate (this is also true in Washington and Oregon, which vote by mail). It’s also generally known that provisional ballots tend to skew liberal (due to the demographics of the people who are voting provisionally).
Both of these are patterns I’ve seen in action as a poll worker – my anecdotal data of who comes into the polling place on election day to return absentees, and who votes provisionally, match the statements above.
The two of these combined make it completely understandable that numbers will shift more to the left as late ballots are processed. This is a pattern that I’ve seen in California elections *back into the 1980s*.aphrael (b6023b) — 6/4/2014 @ 7:21 am
Sandra FLuke appears to have made it to the runoff in CA’s SD26. Clearly she was helped by the lunatic Daily Breeze endorsement and name recognition at the polls.
I must have gotten 500 flyers on that race and not one from her. I may find myself giving money to her opponent Ben Allen, a Dem.Kevin M (b357ee) — 6/4/2014 @ 7:23 am
Kevin M – wow. That district had 7 democrats and a nonpartisan running … but nobody from any other party. that’s impressive.aphrael (b6023b) — 6/4/2014 @ 7:28 am
Both of these are patterns I’ve seen in action as a poll worker
So, you are suggesting that people who are punctual vote Republican, and people who are always running late vote Democrat?Kevin M (b357ee) — 6/4/2014 @ 7:28 am
Kevin – as a broad stereotype, yes!
Not every individual comports with the stereotype, to be sure. But my experience is that people who return absentee ballots on election day are substantially more democrat than average, and my experience is that provisional voters are either democrats or third party voters.aphrael (b6023b) — 6/4/2014 @ 7:29 am
That district had 7 democrats and a nonpartisan running … but nobody from any other party. that’s impressive.
It’s not really that lopsided, and the Democrat strength is largely based on social issues.Kevin M (b357ee) — 6/4/2014 @ 7:33 am
aphrael, your hypothesis as to why late ballots generally skew to the left may be true, but I am simply amazed (and very skeptical) about the fact that Democrats so often find just exactly enough late votes to pull their candidate through. Just off the top of my head:
1994 CA House: Jane Harman nips Susan Brooks during the recount
2000 WA Senate: Maria Cantwell passes Slate Gordon during recount
2004 WA Governor: Christie Gregoire finds enough recount votes to pass Dino Rossi
2008 MN Senate: Al Franken comes from behind to beat Norm Coleman
In fact the 2000 Presidential election in Florida is a notable exception in that the Gore campaign was essentially prevented from continuing to “find” new votes, though had it dragged on there is no doubt in my mind that they would have magically come up with the 600 or so that were needed to win.
Why is it that Democrat candidates always seem to pick up votes as the night wears on? Why is it that major urban centers that skew heavily Democrat seem to have their votes counted last? Call me paranoid, but it’s hard for me not to believe that Democrat political machines are monitoring results throughout the evening and ensuring that their precincts deliver enough to offset any Republican lead. It’s pretty well established that this is how Chicago worked during the Daley era.JVW (feb406) — 6/4/2014 @ 8:34 am
JVW, for one thing, I think you have to take the behavior in different states differently. I don’t think it’s reasonable to suppose that the behavior of election apparatus in California and New York are the same, for example. 🙂 (I certainly don’t trust the NYC Board of Elections further than I can throw it).
> Why is it that Democrat candidates always seem to pick up votes as the night wears on?
Early return absentees have consistently skewed more conservative than the electorate at large; these absentees are counted and reported at 8pm, so conservatives always start with a lead. 🙂
> Why is it that major urban centers that skew heavily Democrat seem to have their votes counted last?
That’s hard to answer, and i’m not sure there *is* a general case answer. In California, the counties where I worked (Santa Cruz and San Mateo) both had efficient operations which reported relatively early. I’ve never understood why LA County and San Francisco county take forever, although in San Francisco county I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a reflection of the complexity of the local ballot – SF County uses ranked choice voting for local races, and always has a gigantic number of local ballot initiatives.aphrael (af01a5) — 6/4/2014 @ 8:56 am
I don’t think it’s reasonable to suppose that the behavior of election apparatus in California and New York are the same, for example.
Come now, aphrael. Both states have a Democrat machine that is dominated by a nexus of unions (especially public employee unions); wealthy liberals in finance, technology, and entertainment; media and academia; and the racial/ethnic/sexual grievance crowd. Those two states are dominated by a similar type of ideology, so why wouldn’t their election apparati (bad Latin) be strikingly similar?
I know I am walking close to the Black Helicopters from the UN crowd in terms of my paranoia, but when you mention San Francisco let’s not forget about the infamous ballot boxes floating in San Francisco Bay. I have a feeling that we only uncover a fraction of all the illegal garbage that goes on in elections, so for every time this sort of thing is discovered there are ten more times when they get away with it.
That’s not to say that every time a candidate of the left wins a close race it is a certainty that they cheated, and it isn’t even to say that ever time a candidate of the left wins after a recount it is a certain sign of cheating, but it is to say that I am generally unwilling to give the Demcorat party the benefit of the doubt.JVW (feb406) — 6/4/2014 @ 9:54 am
As a tribute to the Low Info Voter, take note that “the indicted” Leland Yee garnered nearly 300,000 votes to finish 3rd with 10% of the total in the Sec State race. And that is with a record low for voter participation; in a hotly contested gubernatorial contest he may have received even more.gramps, the original (4615a6) — 6/4/2014 @ 10:14 am
Gramps, in another tribute to the low information voter a fellow in Arizona who is seeking a congressional seat in a heavily Mexican-American district has changed his name to Caesar Chavez. The dude has run twice as a Republican and lost both times, so he is now a registered Democrat. (Hey, if it works for Charlie Crist. . . . )
Normally I would be appalled by this sort of cynical opportunism, but for some reason I think it fits perfectly into Barack Obama’s America, circa 2014. If I were this guy in Arizona’s campaign manager, I would encourage him to adopt the following slogan:JVW (feb406) — 6/4/2014 @ 10:28 am
Ballots with write-in votes are not counted on election night either, as they must be checked by hand.NickM (f8e14b) — 6/4/2014 @ 11:31 am
So Sandra’s in a run-off, huh? What’s her opponent Ben Allen like? Does it matter which of them wins the state senate seat? Any predictions as to how it’ll turn out?elissa (76d201) — 6/4/2014 @ 12:49 pm
This made me shake my head:
And the real question, if true, is why that is true? I think we all know the answer to that question.
Here is the thing. I think that “straight party voting” is a bad thing, regardless of D, R, or I. It encourages empty headed reflexive voting, easily swayed by nonsense and silly insults and nicknames. I would like nothing more than a poll test of every voter. Questions like:
I think that people who cannot answer those questions correctly should not vote. But, thanks to Democrat antics prior to 1964, we will never again be allowed to require an informed and engaged electorate. The old Leo Szilard maxim comes to mind. When he was asked what he thought of democracy in the 1940s (back when journalists actually were, you know, patriotic instead of nuanced) he replied that he understood that the vote of a fool should be the same as the vote of a wise man. What worried him was that two fools could outvote a wise man. Which takes us back to poll tests, and why we cannot have them.
Which is a shame. Low information voters simply vote at a whim. We should making voting more difficult, not less.
But the sad part is that such a sentiment will get me labeled and marginalized. All political parties like their voters to be ignorant and reflexive. It makes getting and keeping power for themselves easier.
We are a bunch of rubes, truly.Simon Jester (a49dcb) — 6/4/2014 @ 1:16 pm
JVW (feb406) — 6/4/2014 @ 10:28 am
Check the electoral/name history of Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez from the OC.askeptic (8ecc78) — 6/4/2014 @ 1:39 pm
She ran once or twice as Loretta Brixey (her married name) before finding success (and Nativo Lopez and the Hermandad Mexicana Nacional).
my congresswhore is a white male who does not feel like a woman trapped in the body of a man named adam schiff he just introduced a law to exploit the dead college kids what got killed in various ways in santa barbara
adam also loves obamacare, food stamps, and releasing terrorists into the wildhappyfeet (8ce051) — 6/4/2014 @ 1:46 pm
“But the sad part is that such a sentiment will get me labeled and marginalized.”
Simon – Lifelong, unbiased, conservative journalist Walter Cronkite also thought the population was too dumb to vote and I don’t recall him being marginalized. 🙂daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/4/2014 @ 1:49 pm
Simon isn’t a Leftist Icon.askeptic (8ecc78) — 6/4/2014 @ 2:01 pm
well, since it looks like the idiots bought into the swill Cash&Carry was selling, i’m going to vote for the Green Party candidate in November for governor.
no way i’m ever voting for a RINO again, especially a gun hating carpetbagger one.redc1c4 (abd49e) — 6/4/2014 @ 2:17 pm
She ran once or twice as Loretta Brixey (her married name) before finding success (and Nativo Lopez and the Hermandad Mexicana Nacional).
I can’t recall exactly which one, but I believe that there is a female Hispanic politician in this area who went so far as to resurrect her mother’s maiden name in order to provide herself with a Spanish surname when she launched her political career. She apparently couldn’t speak a lick of Spanish but no matter, she had the name. If I ever move back to Boston and decide to launch a political career I’ll adopt my great-grandmother’s Irish maiden name as my own.JVW (feb406) — 6/4/2014 @ 2:17 pm
I agree with your questions Simon. I’d also add a few about American History, too. Like:
When was the Civil War fought?
Who was Dwight David Eisenhower?
What is the significance of Oct 29, 1929 Black Tuesday?
What occurred on the eleventh of September in 2001?
Who was Alan Shepard Jr.?
What was the Marshall Plan initiative?
What was the significance of “The Pentagon Papers”?
In my opinion having at least a passing acquaintance with our culture, and “how we got here”, and somewhat understanding both our nation’s successes and our mistakes along the way is very important for citizenship. Dare I say it is critical to getting beyond raw partisanship and toward being able to make the necessary connections in order for people to vote intelligently. So many folks today are woefully ignorant of these kinds of important events and people. But of course all that stuff “was more that two years ago, dude!”elissa (76d201) — 6/4/2014 @ 2:24 pm
So Sandra’s in a run-off, huh? What’s her opponent Ben Allen like? Does it matter which of them wins the state senate seat? Any predictions as to how it’ll turn out?
Ben Allen is the typical Santa Monica lefty who lined up endorsements from the entire Westside power elite to finish in first. He thinks that all the lightly-educated hordes in our district can find jobs in the “clean energy sector,” and that we need to shovel tax incentives to Hollywood in order to keep production from moving to North Dakota (or something). I may try to blog on that later. He’ll end the political corruption of his party by calling for public financing of campaigns. He has nothing to say about the public pension crisis.
Still, I’m going to vote for him in November. The possibility of having a mindless wannabe celebrity like Sandra Fluke is too much for me to bear.JVW (feb406) — 6/4/2014 @ 2:26 pm
Who was Dwight David Eisenhower?
The answer: “Halfback on the 1912 West Point football team” will be acceptable.JVW (feb406) — 6/4/2014 @ 2:27 pm
you’re wrong JVW: we need to elect the worst possible leftard running in as many races as possible, not try to mitigate the damage.
only by making them smash into the wall as hard as possible, with as much personal pain and suffering as can be inflicted are the idiots amongst us ever going to possibly open their eyes…
although more than likely, they will react like this idiot in Austin Texas.
however, since we’ve already proven that facts, figures, history and reasoned discourse don’t get through to them, it’s pretty much our only remaining option to eventually make thing better.
if you’ve got a better plan, i’m all ears, but voting for the least worse got us where we are today.redc1c4 (abd49e) — 6/4/2014 @ 3:32 pm
you’re wrong JVW: we need to elect the worst possible leftard running in as many races as possible, not try to mitigate the damage.
Not true, only because the damage they will do in the interim will have long-lasting effects, and I still want to try and live in this state. True, I would vote for the worst of the worst if I was on my way to relocating to Texas, but I don’t plan to do that. Having 20% unemployment among 16-24 year-olds is bad enough; we don’t need to allow it to go up to 40% just to make a point.JVW (feb406) — 6/4/2014 @ 3:45 pm
We already have the worst possible leftards in the WH, leading the senate, heading the “Justice” Department and heading powerful agencies who are appointed by the president and sucking the remaining lifeblood out of our economy and our spirit. How you think that even more of this will somehow miraculously morph to create the future you desire for this country is really beyond comprehension, redc1c4.elissa (76d201) — 6/4/2014 @ 3:59 pm
elissa, if you really want to make them stretch on American Culture, ask them what these American inventors invented:askeptic (8ecc78) — 6/4/2014 @ 4:14 pm
Eli Whitney? (there’s more than one answer)
Henry Leland? (there’s more than one answer also, and a connection to another on the list)
I have a seventh grade reader* with a story about Eli Whitney and President George Washington. Whitney demonstrates to Washington mass production of muskets by assembly from interchangeable parts**. It also has a story about the death of Abraham Lincoln’s grandfather, by Indians in Kentucky. Am I concerned that my daughter’s seventh grade reading will be different? Not really, and I don’t know how important it was for me to know those things in the first place. Is it important for my daughter to know that Hiram Maxim invented a recoil-operated modified Winchester lever action that was bought by the Turkish army or that his son invented the silencer?
*It was my prize in Battle of the Books, I didn’t steal it from the school.nk (dbc370) — 6/4/2014 @ 4:36 pm
** Did you know that or were you thinking that Whitney produced the first Colt’s revolvers?
OK boys, let’s not go hog wild with the history questions!elissa (76d201) — 6/4/2014 @ 5:04 pm
History began on January 20, 2009.Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/4/2014 @ 5:16 pm
Get with the program, gang.
Eli Whitney invented (macro) the American System of manufacture – making a commodity or product using interchangeable parts. He also invented (micro) the Cotton Gin (among other things) which revolutionized agriculture in the South.askeptic (8ecc78) — 6/4/2014 @ 5:26 pm
Hiram Maxim invented the first practical machine gun after expatting himself to England – though he retained his US Citizenship until the day he died – and sold his machine-guns to all parties of The Great War. One of the Merchants of Death, along with Nobel and DuPont.
Samuel Morse invented telegraphy and the telegraph, and the code named for him.
George Westinghouse invented AC current to compete against Edison’s DC current and changed the face of electricity.
Henry Leland started the Cadillac Motor Car Co, and sold it to GM – and then went on to create the Lincoln Motor Co to make aircraft engines, and then the car, which he sold to Ford. He also invented the electric hair clipper and had a hand in the electric starter with Charles Kettering.
Leland’s connection is to Whitney, in that he demonstrated interchangeability at a London Exposition with the motor for his Cadillac in the same manner as did Whitney a Century before with his muskets. Both items had previously required extensive handiwork to both make the parts and to fit them together. Whitney and Leland showed that both firearms, and automobiles, could be made with mass-produced, interchangeable parts, to assemble a working, reliable product through the use of check-gauges and standards.
These men all changed the face of industry and the world around them, for better or worse.
They didn’t build that.
BarackElephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/4/2014 @ 5:32 pm
It does to me. Every time I see Sandra Fluke I think of a multi-thousand dollar per year birth control tab, and I get a mental image of her scrogging her way through Georgetown law school.
I don’t want to have that mental image stuck in my head. I realize she wasn’t necessarily talking about her own megatonnage of birth control, but she made the connection and now I can’t undo it. It’s like having a song you don’t like playing over and over in your mind.
Can somebody please convince the left wing vaginas to stop monologuing? For the children?Steve57 (61329d) — 6/4/2014 @ 5:52 pm
I hear you, Steve57, but I always ask that question of the knowledgeable locals because heaven knows there may be someone even worse than Sandra out there in California.elissa (76d201) — 6/4/2014 @ 6:13 pm
Liberals are always accusing conservatives of wanting to police people’s bedrooms. As a conservative, I can tell you I want nothing to do with other people’s bedrooms. In fact, as a conservative, I have no interest in what goes on in the other rooms in your pad. Use whatever toilet or light bulbs you like.
I’ve got enough on my plate. I’m still trying to get it out of my mind that Barbara Walters was talking about her vibrator on The View. Do I need Sandra Fluke to be a state Senator, too? Enough is enough, people. Ben Allen sounds eminently forgettable. I couldn’t pick him out of a lineup.
Please, kali, for the love of all that is holy vote for Ben Allen so the rest of the country can get on with its life without all the mental scarring.Steve57 (61329d) — 6/4/2014 @ 6:14 pm
elissa, you could be right. But I’d like to point out that at this point we still don’t have any idea how bad Sandra Fluke could even be. Her first time out of the gate was pretty bad. Maybe she was just warming up.
As far as I’m concerned, you might as well ask me to choose between Idi Amin and Pol Pot.
So I say, vote for the guy who hasn’t already psychologically damaged the nation.Steve57 (61329d) — 6/4/2014 @ 6:19 pm
Couldn’t Barack have thrown in Sandra Fluke as part of the Gitmo/Bergdahl trade ?Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/4/2014 @ 6:19 pm
I’d be all in favor of subsidizing liberals’ birth control as long as we could force them to use it.Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/4/2014 @ 6:21 pm
I don’t want liberals to have babies.
ES, maybe Obama tried and the Haqqani network found the idea too icky.Steve57 (61329d) — 6/4/2014 @ 6:24 pm
But they probably intended to put a veil over her head, anyhow.Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/4/2014 @ 6:28 pm
A veil? So that’s what they’re calling paper bags now.Steve57 (61329d) — 6/4/2014 @ 6:36 pm
“…running second as of right now to Republican Elan Carr, a criminal gang prosecutor.”
I know some people do not like prosecutors, but calling them a criminal gang may be a bit much?rd (8016dd) — 6/5/2014 @ 1:53 am