Perdue didn't win because of a large democratic turnout.

Perdue won because she won the rural eastern democratic base. McCrory was too busy going for urban centers to realize that the bulk of the people live in the country. He also made no attempts at going at the Down East Vote. There are counties in North Carolina that voted overwhelmingly for both McCain and Dole, however, McCrory lost by more than 5%.

Until there is a strong tide of Republicans winning the Governor's mansion in this State it will always be a fluke that a Republican (especially a Charlottean) candidate wins the Governorship.

6/23/2009 11:59:02 AM

Perdue won because she got democrats to vote for her?

6/23/2009 12:25:44 PM

Quote :

"Removing those letters will just make voters even less informed, maybe even stifle voter turnout."

You heard it hear first folks! Voter turnout will decrease if the government dosent tell you who to vote for! Yes, voter turnout is more important than electing the right candidate for the job.

If you have no idea who the cadidates are, you should do your fellow citizens a big favor and NOT VOTE.

6/23/2009 12:50:20 PM

Attention, people who "have no idea who the candidates are": Ignore bigun20. As your fellow citizen, you'd be doing me an even bigger favor if you learned more about the candidates and their platforms then voted according to your priorities.

6/23/2009 1:39:31 PM

Quote :

"you'd be doing me an even bigger favor "

So they are already doing you a favor by voting without any idea who these candidates are, but they'd be doing you a bigger favor by actually being informed?

Quote :

"Attention, people who "have no idea who the candidates are": Ignore bigun20. You have the right to vote and you have the right not to vote, its your choice!As your fellow citizen, you'd be doing me an even bigger and your fellow citizens a favor if you learned more about the candidates and their platforms then voted according to your priorities instead of voting strickly down party lines."

There, fixed it for you.

6/23/2009 2:15:22 PM

Quote :

"Thats the reason why I support removing the D and R labels and straight ticket possibilities. It prevents uninformed voters from making uninformed decisions. "

I can not stand fucking straight ticket voting. What most ignoramous americans do not realize when they pull the lever is that often
some of the local and even state candidates they are automaticaly selecting have a more significant effect on their lives than the president/US senators/etc.
Also, that the "republican" "democrat" platform becomes convoluted and distorted on the local and state level (i.e southern democrats
are more "conservative" than a californian republican in some regards). This is ignoring the fact that you are not really "voting" for president
when u go to the booth.

I'd support the requirement for a high school diploma or GED for the right to vote. While this will not solve "uninformed" voters it would
at least help. An uninformed ignorant voting base can lead to end results that could be just as bad as having an unelected authoritarian
leader. At least the latter would at least rile some feathers about his abuses of power. A classic example is how Ted Stevens even amist
his corruption charges (one example being the use tax payer money to expand his house) he nearly won re-election because he was the -R candidate.
Sure most of the charges were "dropped" but I do not doubt they were true. Stevens just had the political pull to sway the outcome to a lesser charge.

6/23/2009 2:15:33 PM

Yes, the exercise of rights is great even when those rights or the exercise of same aren't fully understood. Is that hard to understand?

6/23/2009 2:18:26 PM

Quote :

"You heard it hear first folks! Voter turnout will decrease if the government dosent tell you who to vote for! "

Well, naturally, when you make a tedious, confusing process even more tedious and confusing, you're going to get less turnout and less accuracy.

Quote :

"Yes, voter turnout is more important than electing the right candidate for the job. If you have no idea who the cadidates are, you should do your fellow citizens a big favor and NOT VOTE"

wow


^^,^^^ Your problems aren't with how the voting machines work, your problems are with idiots. FYI, as long as America has stupid people, it will have stupid government. If you try to disenfranchise stupid people, then you get irrepresentative, illegitimate government, which is worse. Treat the disease, not the symptoms. Fix the stupid.

This is why always I support more funding for primary education and youth enrichment.

6/23/2009 2:49:36 PM

Quote :

"If you try to disenfranchise stupid people, then you get irrepresentative, illegitimate government, which is worse. Treat the disease, not the symptoms. Fix the stupid"

This is respectable; you are right.

Quote :

"This is why always I support more funding for primary education and youth enrichment."

I see money spent, within reason and as long as the student makes certain grades, on assisting students pay or merely improving the quality
for universities and community colleges as an investment by the gov't.

Quote :

"I'm sure you'd be all for eugenics. "

Me nor anyone i know supports eugenics. What I do not support is the way in which the current system supports if not rewards irresponsible reproduction
by those who can not afford more children. The hard working workforce of america should not be tasked with subsidizing those who pump out babies
with no intention of working or contributing for society.

6/23/2009 4:37:25 PM

Quote :

"The hard working workforce of america should not be tasked with subsidizing those who pump out babies with no intention of working or contributing for society"

What a stupid fucking comment.

6/23/2009 4:43:13 PM

Stupid in what way?

6/23/2009 5:41:57 PM

^ I agree with that statement. There isn't anything wrong with it.

6/24/2009 8:16:39 PM

Quote :

"Your problems aren't with how the voting machines work, your problems are with idiots. FYI, as long as America has stupid people, it will have stupid government. If you try to disenfranchise stupid people, then you get irrepresentative, illegitimate government, which is worse. Treat the disease, not the symptoms. Fix the stupid."

While I agree with this in principle, a lot of the issues with American education lie with culture and motivation rather than teaching quality. And if in fact intellect is a hereditary trait, then it makes the problem even harder to solve... virtually impossible by humane standards. Education in America does need to improve, and as that happens, the cultural motivation issues in poorer areas will gradually fade out... but that's a process that would take multiple generations of social progress, and in the meantime the country still has the problem of uninformed voters electing bad government. To compound the issue, similar to the positive social changes in education, decades of bad government will only make problems worse; the more we elect incompetent officials, the less the major problems like education will be solved.

Without discouraging uninformed voters, it simply becomes a race between social decline in government and social progress in education, and at the moment, social decline seems to be winning... The biggest deficiency in American public education -- teachers' salaries** -- is rarely, if ever, addressed. It would be great if we could just throw some more money at the problem and instantly get a bunch of educated people, but regardless of any proposed solutions short of inventing a technological instant-brain-altering machine (which we shouldn't ever trust the government with, anyway), it's going to be a very gradual process. As such, I see it as nothing short of a necessity to remove the straight-ticket voting option and discourage (verbally, of course) uninformed voters from voting on a particular office, especially at the local and state levels***. Even this would only serve to slow the problem, but every bit helps.


**(Low teachers' salaries limit the field largely to capable people with a passion or interest in the field or incompetents who just couldn't cut it anywhere else. Raise salaries, and you raise the number of competent people who would have otherwise gone to higher-paying jobs, and with greater numbers of people entering the field, higher standards could be enforced.)

***Of course, this entire tangent of discussion on straight-ticket/uninformed voting is utterly pointless, anyway, since fixing these issues would require our government representatives to vote on measures to eliminate straight-ticket voting... which would never happen, since it's one of many things that allow them ("them" being incumbent candidates) to remain in power. Basically, it will never happen without a "ballot initiative" sort of deal, and California has managed to prove why that sort of representation doesn't work in the long-term. My point here is that America is fucked unless a rather large teacher salary raise happens soon, but I don't see that happening either (more due to the government's aversion to efficiency and common sense than because of an inherent lust for power, though).

6/26/2009 1:06:32 AM

Quote :

"wow"

That statement you are referring too was sarcasm....

It was in reference to the the argument that taking away straight ticket voting and the D's and R's would bring less people to the polls.

Quote :

""If you try to disenfranchise stupid people, then you get irrepresentative, illegitimate government, which is worse"

BS. If you take away the party label on the ballots, the uninformed voter would have to either not vote for that particular office (you can skip them you know), write someone in, or pick and choose between whomever is listed. Therefore, the citizen who is informed will likely pick the candidate. This would hold the government and its officials to a higher standard and weed out the Bev Perdues.

[Edited on June 26, 2009 at 9:13 AM. Reason : .]

6/26/2009 9:12:33 AM

I know it was sarcasm. I was reacting with surprise and disgust with your implication that more voter turn-out could ever mean a less perfect election result. How exactly is a non-vote better than a vote based on party affiliation?

6/26/2009 9:54:28 AM

Quote :

"How exactly is a non-vote better than a vote based on party affiliation?"

Winner winner chicken dinner.

6/26/2009 9:57:37 AM

I guess one benefit of the "Obama Effect" and the unpopularity of the GOP last election was the ousting of Libby "CarpetBagger" Dole from the senate.

6/26/2009 10:35:46 AM

Hard times, tough luck for Perdue
The governor's approval plummets as the state's economy worsens and she proposes raising taxes

Quote :

"RALEIGH -- Nearly six months after taking office, Gov. Beverly Perdue's political honeymoon is over. Perdue has been politically whipsawed from the left and the right. Teachers, state employees and advocates for the poor have taken to the streets, upset about state budget cuts and furloughs. Conservatives, outraged over her proposal to raise taxes by $1.5 billion, have taken up protest signs. Their anger has taken a toll on Perdue, to the point that she is now among the nation's most unpopular governors."

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1586614.html

6/30/2009 5:19:24 PM

ah but at least we know she won't be taking any 'hiking trips' to 'the Appalachians'.

7/1/2009 12:35:49 AM

eh there are male latin lovers as well in Argentina.

7/1/2009 1:08:34 AM

i didn't vote for her.

7/1/2009 1:17:53 AM

Is anyone going to post some actual insight as to whether she deserves our scorn? Yes, she made some unpopular cuts and tax hikes, but isn't it possible these were necessary to keep NC in the black? Is she breaking campaign promises?

7/1/2009 8:11:06 AM

hooksaw,

I figure most of the unpopularity is because of the recession though. You don't win votes by raising taxes and cutting spending, but those things have to be done at the moment because NC is required to keep a balanced budget. Mike Easely got into similar hot water with voters back during our last budget crisis.

Personally, I blame Obama and entire Congress for Perdue's low approval numbers. If they had pushed harder on aid to state governments in the stimulus package, rather than "infrastructure projects" that won't even start until next year, all govenors would be in better shape right now.

Not to mention, it would have made the fiscal stimulus that much more robust. If the federal government spends a dollar, and the state government taxes a dollar, the net stimulus is zero. But the reality is even worse than that. The federal government plans to spend a dollar tomorrow, while the state government taxes a dollar today.

I don't know if anyone's measured it, but I wouldn't be surprised if North Carolina (and possible the nation as a whole) is probably seeing a net *contractionary* policy being pursued by the federal/state government at the moment.

7/1/2009 8:47:29 AM

^^I know for a lot of people recent events have just solidified a dislike for her that goes back to before she was elected.

The debates made her look like a complete fool. Maybe she just doesn't debate well, or maybe she's a fool and the people that didn't pay attention to the debates are just now coming to the same conclusion that the minority of voters came to this past November.

And as far as the deserves our scorn, given taxes had to be raised in these difficult times...

I'd say yes, she still deserves it. Instead of cracking down and eliminating actual waste, we've been treated to the same old, same old - or perhaps the low road/lazy approach. Hold education hostage and demand more ransom money. That's certainly a lot easier than doing a complete budget analysis. Just create a condition where the taxpayers have to get on board with tax increases.

Her approval ratings are so low I'm surprised they haven't pulled out the "temporary tax" labels to affix to all of this garbage.

[Edited on July 1, 2009 at 9:17 AM. Reason : -]

7/1/2009 9:09:56 AM

^ because its so easy to put programs into objective categories labeled "waste" and "valuable".

Personally, I dislike Perdue, but cutting waste is not as easy as you think.

7/1/2009 9:30:57 AM

So to make a point I have to enumerate every little thing that falls under the umbrella of waste now? Your post seems to imply that you think that a sufficient amount of things have been taken out of the budget, so it is now time to start raising taxes. Plus I didn't indicate that it would be easy. What I did indicate as being easy is the whole "oh well, accept tax hikes or education gets it". For once I'd like to see them address the budget head on - with no easy outs.

Is it easy to divide projects into objective categories like "vital" and "non-vital" where we can put non-vital projects on hold for better economic times? You can probably put that 25 million dollar pier project on hold for example. Maybe I should go down all the line items in the budget...

Meh, it's a tough call either way. The pier might create a few jobs, so is it vital or non-vital. Still, projects like these stack the deficit up quickly. I'd rather see them do 'frivolous' things in better times instead of the current method, which seems to consist of throwing the blinders up and hitting everyone up for more money.

[Edited on July 1, 2009 at 9:45 AM. Reason : -]

7/1/2009 9:41:13 AM

The same thing happened with Easley and Perdue that happened with Hunt and Easley. Everything was just fine during the election year but as soon as the Democrat successor was sworn in, a surprising budget mess just appears out of the blue.

7/1/2009 12:02:12 PM

I can't remember a time when there wasn't a budget mess in NC.

I dated a girl back in 2001 that was a poly sci student at App doing some sort of semester+summer program with the legislature as an assistant to...Marc Basnight. At the time, I had no clue or care about politics but I remember her going on and on about the budget and all the work they had to do and how much of a mess it was. It was all she talked about. Nearly killed my libido.

7/1/2009 12:06:03 PM

Didn't they have a 2 billion surplus a few years ago?

7/1/2009 12:27:09 PM

Socks``, you have a point: The economy certainly isn't helping. And I think people expect miracles sometimes, too--and when the magic doesn't come, they turn nasty. But Perdue has also upset much of her base with what appears to be broken promises.

But jbtilley is right, too:

Quote :

"The debates made her look like a complete fool. Maybe she just doesn't debate well, or maybe she's a fool and the people that didn't pay attention to the debates are just now coming to the same conclusion that the minority of voters came to this past November."

Anyone who watched those debates knows that McCrory significantly outperformed Perdue. If the election had been based on the debates, McCrory should have won in a landslide. I think the Republican brand was simply too damaged at election time.

7/1/2009 12:58:31 PM

She signed into law a couple of days ago a bill that gives parents the option to have their kids taught comprehensive sex ed (even though it still says abstinence only until marriage is the only sure fire way not to get pregnant or to get stds). This means teaching more facts in schools, and perhaps less unwanted pregnancies & stds going around.... I'm not sure a republican gov would have been able to stand up to pressure coming from his party to keep the only option as abstinence only until marriage.

7/2/2009 6:43:37 AM

Quote :

"Socks``, you have a point: The economy certainly isn't helping. And I think people expect miracles sometimes, too--and when the magic doesn't come, they turn nasty. But Perdue has also upset much of her base with what appears to be broken promises."

100% agree. I think even accounting for the economy, her numbers would still be dropping.

7/2/2009 8:10:04 AM

I'll give Perdue credit for this.

Cause we ALL know that if we tell kids that sex is evil and bad before marriage causing STDs as well teen pregnancies, than they will not do it. We should ask republican conservative family moral friendly Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin

[Edited on July 2, 2009 at 8:18 AM. Reason : aa]

7/2/2009 8:17:54 AM

classic sugar dumplin', taking credit for legislation she had nothing to do with

7/2/2009 9:40:17 PM

she's only 6 months in and already a lame duck for all practical purposes

7/2/2009 10:17:47 PM

pretty much a total disaster.

i find it hard to believe that NC couldn't find a better leader out of 6+ million fuckers

7/3/2009 12:23:42 AM

I tend to think that Perdue rode the Obama wave into office, just as many other democrats did. Straight ticket voters sealed the deal.

Quote :

"This is 100% correct. Thats the reason why I support removing the D and R labels and straight ticket possibilities. It prevents uninformed voters from making uninformed decisions. I've posted on here rants about how putting D's and R's on ballots essentially guarantees that these two political parties remain in control."

The problem with removing party labels is that people really wouldn't know who to vote for, in some cases. Is that really a bad thing, though? If you're not familiar with the candidate, and were only going to vote for him or her because they had a certain letter next to their name, were you really "informed"?

Lumex brought up that point that removing party labels would make people less informed, and would stifle voter turnout. I don't agree that it would make people "less informed." People are going to be as informed as they are, regardless of what letters show up on the ballot. They might be inclined to do some research before voting though, since they know they won't be able to pull the lever for a certain party.

On the point that it will stifle voter turnout, I absolutely agree. There are many people that aren't willing or able to research the candidates and figure out which one represents their values. Picking a party allows those people to support an entire platform without thinking. And you know what? Those are the people that shouldn't be voting. Some people are just too stupid to vote. Voter turnout alone is not an indicator of a good democracy.

Or, perhaps voters were informed. They realized that the Democratic party was promising them free stuff, so they voted them in. As long as politicians can just give away gifts in exchange for votes, we're sort of screwed.

[Edited on July 3, 2009 at 3:54 PM. Reason : ]

7/3/2009 3:52:06 PM

Perdue did not ride Obama's coat tails. Perdue won more counties than Obama, got more votes than Obama, etc.

Y'all just need to realize that North Carolina is a Democratic State, we just tend to vote Republican nationally.

7/4/2009 11:34:21 AM

^that is because, if you look at the stats, people voted straight party and didnt relize they werent voting for Prez....


She will win her re-election due to Obama.....she is very lucky!!!!!







[Edited on July 4, 2009 at 10:26 PM. Reason : w]

7/4/2009 10:22:29 PM

So let me get this straight:

The people who went to vote for Obama skipped over the first part of the ballot where it had Obama's name in large letters to go down half the ballot and mark the straight ticket line.

And this is evidence by a decreased turnout in the Presidential election? No. What could you possibly have to evidence this?

7/5/2009 12:08:33 PM

Hey who's ready for sales tax to go up to 7.75%?

Remember the other "temporary emergency" sales tax hike that was supposed to go away? They voted to make it permament. But I'm sure this time it will be temporary...right?

Quote :

"Here are some key elements of Gov. Beverly Perdue's tax proposal: •Sales tax: increase by 1 cent to 7.75 percent in Wake and most other counties. (Expires Sept. 30, 2010.) •Income tax: surcharge on single taxpayers earning more than $500,000 and married couples filing jointly who make more than $1 million. (Expires after two years.) •Cigarette tax: 50 cent-per-pack increase •Beer tax: 2 cents-per-can increase •Alcohol tax: 2 percent increase Changes effective October 2010: •Tax on cosmetic surgery, limousines, chartered flights •Tax on couriers •Tax on online sales called "click throughs" "

7/9/2009 10:38:30 PM

We have giant budget problems. I will pay more taxes to help fix this.

7/10/2009 2:11:29 AM

The real question is: Why the fuck weren't these items already taxed?

•Tax on cosmetic surgery, limousines, chartered flights

7/10/2009 9:27:50 AM

Yes we need to pay more taxes on everything. Why haven't we been paying more taxes already?
This is so wrong... WE NEED TO PAY MORE TAXES!

Gov't needs the money... NOTHING CAN BE CUT except police and fire.

I will sing as I pay more taxes for the fine gov't we are getting.

7/10/2009 10:30:48 AM

Quote :

"•Beer tax: 2 cents-per-can increase •Alcohol tax: 2 percent increase "

Alcohol is already taxed at like 50% plus sales for fucks sake.

Why doesn't Cunt Perdue work on cutting state spending. Surely there is plenty of garbage we waste money on besides schools, roads, cops,and fire departments.

7/10/2009 1:28:52 PM

actually, we have one of the lowest alcohol taxes in the country. It is something like 54 cents on a gallon.

7/10/2009 3:45:16 PM

purdue only one term

7/10/2009 3:58:31 PM

^^
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/245.html

6th highest for beer, 10th highest for Spirits. According to the link, at any rate. I'm assuming they're right.



6th lowest on cigarettes, though.

7/10/2009 8:22:44 PM

Perdue gets mixed reviews after first six months

http://www.wral.com/news/local/politics/story/5541881/

7/10/2009 8:54:04 PM

Quote :

"actually, we have one of the lowest alcohol taxes in the country. "

Is that supposed to be a justification for raising tax on it?

Our taxes are lower than other states! We have it too easy! We must raise taxes to stay competitive!

7/11/2009 10:12:29 AM