Sponsored by

Comments on

Open thread: Who are you voting for?

It’s Election Day, but tens of thousands of Southern Arizonans have already cast their votes. Whether you’ve returned an early ballot, waited for Election Day, or just plain haven’t made up your mind (yet, really?!), tell us your thoughts on election 2012.... Read more»

have your say   

7 comments on this story

1
1459 comments
Nov 3, 2012, 8:25 pm
-2 +2

Wow, Dylan, am I glad you asked… :)

Ghandi said we should be the change we want to see in the world. With that in mind, I actually make the effort to go to the polls on election day. I gladly show my ID, as I am proud to prove my United States citizenship. So, I haven’t voted yet. But if the ballot were in front of my right now, here’s how I would vote…

President:

Write in: None of these guys. Find someone else. Not that it matters anyway. One of the few broken things with the Constitution is the electoral college. Arizona always votes republican, so Romney will win the nine electoral votes here regardless of what I do.

Senator:

Undecided. Carmona is a good guy who has ran a shitty campaign with loose ethics. I’m leaning toward Flake, but I haven’t made up my mind yet.

Congress:

Martha McSally. Someone who has served our country honorably, and had the stones to sue the DOD to change a policy that should have never been implemented in the first place is far more qualified than a lifelong bureaucrat who only got elected because Giffords told you to vote for her. Barber clearly demonstrated in his campaign for the special election that he is a hypocritc and a man of very low character. Civility my ass…I would hire that asshole to sweep my floor. Not as bad as Grijalva, of course, but still doesn’t deserve the job. Barber, and Grijalva, are both too stupid to understand that Social Security, in its present form, is going to fall apart. They don’t care…they’re both in their sixties and will be dead by the time it happens. But I’m in my thirties…I care. When SS collapses, it’s going to affect me.

Of course I can’t vote against Grijalva, but I did happily send Gabriela Saucedo-Mercer a campaign contribution which equals a little less than a day’s pay, net.

Board of Supervisors: Ally Miller. I’ve listened to her speak, I’m impressed. But, to be honest, this is one of those deals where I’m just voting against the incumbent.

Sheriff: Mark Napier. I am going to take care to fill in the circle completely, darkly, and not go over the circle. This is one I really want more than any other race I’m eligible to vote for. This will be my sixth time voting against Dupnik, and I’m hoping six times will be the charm. Napier has run a really good, positive campaign. He has proven that he is not too “busy” or “important” to speak to the voters. Hell, the guy even has his cell phone number posted on his website. That’s classy. Dupnik is a scumbag, always has been. On Buckmaster’s show, when asked his website address, Dupnik said “I don’t know”. If he’s so out of touch he doesn’t even know his own campaign’s URL, how can we expect him to pay attention to running a Sheriff’s department???

County Recorder: Bill Beard. Again, impressed with him and again, voting for the incumbent. Many election results in this region are suspect, and the first person you gotta look at is the one counting the votes. Time for a change there.

As to the other races involving candidates…I never vote for anyone running unopposed. The other competitive races I have yet to research fully enough to form an opinion. Tomorrow and Monday I’ll hit the internet…

The props:

114: A passionate yes. This is long overdue. The concept of a criminal being able to sue his victim is just so far beyond stupid I can’t understand how anyone ever let it be successful.

115: yes

116: yes

117: no government gets too greedy, especially during times like these where people have less money. If I have to stretch money and do more with less, than so too much my government.

118: yes

119: yes

120: undecided. I’m a strong advocate for state’s rights, but to entrust parks to the people who thought closing rest areas was a great idea to save money doesn’t sound like a good idea. Besides, the feds aren’t doing a bad job.

121: A whole-hearty and passionate YES YES YES!!! Both parties think this is a bad idea, so that means I think it’s great. The system is set up now to favor extremes from both parties. The top-two system will get more moderates. It’s been successful in California, and if given a chance it will be here, too.

204: NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!!!!!!!!!! I voted against prop 100 2½ years ago. As I said above, if I have to rough it then so too does my government. They didn’t need the “temporary” tax. I knew the moment 100 passed that there would be idiots trying to remove the “temporary” label…enough with the taxes. Government should be smaller, not bigger. I have to make choices when it comes to my finances, and so too should government. They get plenty of money to work with without the extra 1%.

2
399 comments
Nov 4, 2012, 12:31 am
-0 +1

@Bret Linden

Arizona doesn’t “always” go Republican - Clinton carried the state in 1996. But Obama’s a pretty long shot to take the state this time - Nate Silver’s got Romney at 96 percent. By the way, Arizona’s up to 11 Electoral College votes now.

In the county recorder’s race - that official isn’t the one who counts the votes; that’s handled in the Elections Department. The Recorder’s Office deals with voter registration and the official recording of other documents - thus the name.

Prop 117 is a cap on property taxes that is akin to California’s Proposition 13, which hasn’t worked out all that well for that state.

Prop 121, the “open primaries” measure, is another where the unintended consequences may be worse than the problem it was meant to cure. It’ll certainly be the end of any effective third parties - both the Libertarians and the Greens will be even further shut out of the process than they already are.

3
1459 comments
Nov 4, 2012, 4:10 am
-2 +2

@Dylan Smith

Arizona doesn’t “always” go Republican - Clinton carried the state in 1996. But Obama’s a pretty long shot to take the state this time - Nate Silver’s got Romney at 96 percent. By the way, Arizona’s up to 11 Electoral College votes now.

Yes, 11. I do know that. I have no idea why I typed 9. Maybe that’s what we had last decade and that was just on the brain or something. And, to your other point…I was using “always” in a general context, but I wasn’t that far off. The time before that a Repub didn’t win Arizona’s electoral votes was Truman way back in ‘48. 1948 I mean, but “48” is also the number of years between a non-Repub winning out electoral votes.

In the county recorder’s race - that official isn’t the one who counts the votes; that’s handled in the Elections Department. The Recorder’s Office deals with voter registration and the official recording of other documents - thus the name.

You ever been to the Elections Department building? I work very close to it, and I was just there myself last week to get the big book that has all the text of the propositions. When you get there, there are huge letters on the door that say “F. Ann Rodriguez, Recorder”. To me, that implies that she’s in charge of whatever it is that goes on in that building.

When I cite suspect elections results…we all know that Grijalva won his last election by a razor-thin margin. The intelligent among us know that he shouldn’t have won that at all. One of the worst-kept secrets in this town is that Grijalva is the kingpin of the most corrupt political machine that keeps tax dollars stolen, uh, excuse me, “mismanaged” while this town stagnates. I legitimately think that Grijalva can credit his last victory to dead people and illegals voting. No, I can’t prove that…but just because I can’t prove it doesn’t mean it is not feasible, and it doesn’t mean it did not happen that way. Who’s office is in charge of voter registration? Who has been tasked with seeing to it that only living citizens vote?

Besides, even if I am too paranoid (which I doubt), she’s already been in that spot for something like 20 years, and while I don’t support term limits per se, I am no fan at all of someone “owning” any elected office at any level. Time to make room for someone else. This in itself is more than reason enough to oust the incumbent.

Prop 117 is a cap on property taxes that is akin to California’s Proposition 13, which hasn’t worked out all that well for that state.

Maybe I have to re-read it, but I read it as the assessor can’t jack up the assessed value of your home more than 5% per year. If that’s wrong let me know and I’ll re-read it. But, I think that’s an excellent idea. Had we had something like that in the middle of that last decade (the “zeros”?), then real homeowners (when I say “real homeowners” I mean the people who live in their homes and intended to for the long term, and not people looking for a flip) wouldn’t have been financially gouged when the market got stupid. This might also have the affect of preventing idiot politicians at various layers of government from budgeting for indefinite good times like they did before the bubble burst…then had to scramble in a panic to fund their over bloated system when the bubble did burst.

continued…

4
1459 comments
Nov 4, 2012, 4:12 am
-1 +2

Prop 121, the “open primaries” measure, is another where the unintended consequences may be worse than the problem it was meant to cure. It’ll certainly be the end of any effective third parties - both the Libertarians and the Greens will be even further shut out of the process than they already are.

Worse than the problem it is meant to cure? I’m not sure I see how, but the current system is broken, so I’ll take it one at a time.

I passionately feel that all political parties should be abolished, and that zero tax dollars should be used for any primary election. No, prop 121 won’t fix that, but what it will do is see to it that primaries benefit more people than just those who run the political parties.

And libertarians and greens shut out, huh? Let’s see…Green party offers us wonderful candidates like Mary DeCamp and Dave Crouteau, and Libertarians’ line on the ballot is always there as a fallback plan whenever one of the big two gangs, uh, parties shut out a candidates, ala Blanca Guerra. I think we’ll be OK without those two. Besides, even advocates for those two parties say that they don’t stand a chance of ever winning an election, that there existence is there as an “educational tool”. In today’s information age, are there not better options for these types to educated the public to their issues and opinions than wasting space on ballots that our taxes pay for?

Additionally, something like this might offer us choices in the general elections that better reflect the makeup of the voter-rolls in our state, and election results might more accurately reflect the will of the people. We all know that we indies outnumber the Dems in this state, and I give it another decade, maybe two, and we’ll also outnumber the Repubs.

I think we’ll be all right if 121 passes…

5
1459 comments
Nov 4, 2012, 8:50 am
-2 +3

Now that I told you how I am going to vote, I’ll share my prediction for the presidential race. I’m not saying this is what I want. I’m not saying this is right or wrong or good or bad…this is just what I think will happen.

Generally speaking, in recent times people vote for the president with their wallets and their cars. The economy has not noticeably recovered for the common man, ans gas prices have nearly doubled since Obama took office.

So, if I were to bet on the race I’m going to bet on Romney. Were I to make such a bet, I wouldn’t give any points, though…

6
78 comments
Nov 4, 2012, 11:09 am
-3 +1

I have voted.
Sheriff - Tony Estrada
Supervisor - John Maynard
State Reps - Dalessandro and Ackerly
House - Grijalva, not specifically to rattle Bret’s chain, but if I get that as a side effect, it’s a bonus ;-)
Senate - Carmona, since he was recruited by both sides
President - Johnson, Romney will take the state so I figured that supporting the Libertarian goal of getting to 5% of the popular vote was a good thing.  We need more than D’s and R’s on the debate stages.
Anything that didn’t have two or more options - left blank
Yes to retain the judge
Voted no on all the props but 116, 118, 121.  Own a small business, so 116 is good.  Tired of seeing school crap on the ballot every year, so maybe 118 will help them budget. Totally agree with Bret on 121.

Predictions?  Status Quo.  Obama, Dem Senate, Rep House.  The Republicans will still not get “it” that voters dislike obstruction more than they dislike Obama.  So, in 2016, if Clinton runs, she’s got a damn good shot.  And, she will be probably be the most experienced and qualified candidate that the country has every had…except for that minor detail of not having a penis.

7
1459 comments
Nov 4, 2012, 12:28 pm
-2 +3

janamg wrote:

House - Grijalva

janamg wrote:

Totally agree with Bret on 121.

So let me see if I have this straight…you vote for the most extreme of all the extremists, right or left. Yet, you support the proposition that poses a threat to the extremists more than it does anyone else.

How does that work?

Sorry, we missed your input...

You must be logged in or register to comment

Click to enlarge

KCIvey/Flickr

Categories

news, politics & government, local, arizona, opinion, your thoughts, nation/world, breaking
Sponsored by

Top Commenters

  • Bret Linden: 1459
  • Dylan Smith: 399
  • Roberto De Vido: 269
  • buddhaboy: 238
  • Brittanicus: 176
  • Quietwoman2: 172
  • Joan: 86
  • scar: 83
  • janamg: 78
  • EllieMae: 78
Sponsored by

Yes!

I want to help TucsonSentinel.com offer a real news alternative!

We're committed to making quality news accessible; we'll never set up a paywall or charge for our site. But we rely on your support to bring you indepedent news without the spin. Use our convenient PayPal/credit card donation form below or contact us at donate@tucsonsentinel.com today.

Donate securely with PayPal

$5,000 Newshound
$2,500 Copy desk chief
$1,000 Trusted source
$500 Correspondent
$250 Stringer
$100 Cub reporter
$50 Printer's Devil
$25 Informed Source
$10 Dear Reader
Enter your own amount (below)

OR: Subscribe and stretch your donation over time

$5/mo. Printer's Devil
$10/mo. Cub Reporter
$20/mo. Stringer
$40/mo. Correspondent
Enter your own monthly amount (number only)

TucsonSentinel.com is fiscally sponsored by the Investigative News Network. Your contribution is tax-deductible.

User Guidelines

Please be respectful and relevant. Thought-provoking. Or at least funny.

We want comments to advance the discussion and we need your help. Debate, disagree, yell (digitally) or laugh, but do it with respect.

We won't censor your comments if we don't agree with you; we want viewpoints from across the political spectrum. We're dedicated to sparking an open, active discussion. We believe people with differing opinions can spark debate and effect change.

Comments are open to registered users of TucsonSentinel.com.

Keep in mind:

  • A conversation involves sharing and respect. Support your viewpoint with facts, not attacks.
  • Ask questions. Search out answers.
  • Remember that being part of a community requires tolerance for differing views.
  • We can't ensure that all comments are based in truth. The only comments we endorse are those we write ourselves.

TucsonSentinel.com does not allow:

  • Hate speech. Blatantly racist, sexist or homophobic slurs or calls for violence against a particular type of person, etc. will be removed.
  • Obscenity & excessive cursing. Sometimes a well-placed curse word - if you're creative enough to get it past our auto-censor - can express your point in just the right way. But we say '%*$& no' to cursing for cursing's sake. And lose the explicit sexually-descriptive language. It doesn't contribute to the debate and there are plenty of other places on the Internet to find it.
  • Flaming. During a heated discussion, unkind words may be spoken. We can live with a certain amount of rudeness in the name of provocative conversation, but a pattern of personal attacks (name-calling, mocking, or baiting) is not acceptable nor are threatening or harassing comments. Show some respect, please.
  • Spam. Solicitation of products or services isn't allowed; contact us about advertising, we'd love to talk to you. Links to off-topic sites may be deleted.
  • Copyright or IP infringement. Lengthy quotes and violations of 'Fair Use' aren't allowed. Anything you post should be your own work.
  • Overposting. Don't bore people and waste electrons with identical comments on multiple stories or repetitive comments that don't advance a conversation.
  • Trolling, sockpuppetry, and other abusive behavior. Please don't feed the trolls and don't pretend to be someone you're not.
  • Gossip. Don't bring up others who can't defend themselves. We don't give out personal information; you shouldn't either.

Comments that violate these guidelines may be removed. We reserve the right to make up the rules as we go along.

Flagging

Commentors are solely responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. Users who violate these standards may lose their privileges on TucsonSentinel.com.

Sentinel editors can't read every comment. Trolls, spammers and other troublemakers can slide under the bridge. We rely on you to help maintain a healthy conversation - more than likely, you're reading these comments before the editors.

What if you see something inappropriate? Use the 'Flag' button to send it to a moderation queue. Help us out and tell us why you're reporting it; please don't report someone just because you disagree with them. Boy who cried wolf and all that. We'll take appropriate action on violations.

We will not edit comments to alter their meaning or censor comments because of political content.

We will not remove comments solely because they are heartless, cruel, coarse, foolish or just plain wrong. Your disapproval can maintain a decent signal to noise ratio. Ultimately, however, self-policing is the best method.

Bottom line, don't be a jerk.

  • A
  • A
  • A
  •   Share:
  • more»
Show previews