Virginia referendum - if you hate MAGA, vote YES (even if your mailing says to vote 'No')

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like this amendment is likely to fail at this point. The early voter turnout from red areas is much higher than blue areas. Eg. The early voter turnout from Republican Fauquier county is 5.4%. The turnout from Fairfax county is only 2.6%. There is a very strong gradient between the percentage share of the county that voted republican in 2024 and the early voter turnout. This data also suggests that even within counties republicans are more likely to vote on this amendment than Dems. Unless turnout improves in democratic leaning areas, this amendment is likely to fail or it will be approved by a very slim margin.

Fauquier County has 75,000 people...Fairfax County has 1.15MM.

MAGAs suck at math.

I am aware of that population difference, but this substantial variation in voter turnout rates also suggests a very large enthusiasm gap by party. If turnout is also higher among republicans within blue areas that could be enough to shift the vote margins for the state as a whole. I would not be so arrogant and assume that you are going to win something before it happens. The voting data looks very concerning for anyone that wants this measure to pass. The turnout gap has become larger since yesterday. It’s now 6% for Fauquier and 3% for Fairfax.

So much for that theory

Not that it's much of an indicator, but I have seen more "Vote NO" signs in my neighborhood than Trump signs two years ago. I haven't seen any "Vote YES" signs either.

Who needs voting data when you can count yard signs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What exactly are you so confused about that description? It seems pretty clear to me. Maybe it’s a you thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like this amendment is likely to fail at this point. The early voter turnout from red areas is much higher than blue areas. Eg. The early voter turnout from Republican Fauquier county is 5.4%. The turnout from Fairfax county is only 2.6%. There is a very strong gradient between the percentage share of the county that voted republican in 2024 and the early voter turnout. This data also suggests that even within counties republicans are more likely to vote on this amendment than Dems. Unless turnout improves in democratic leaning areas, this amendment is likely to fail or it will be approved by a very slim margin.

Fauquier County has 75,000 people...Fairfax County has 1.15MM.

MAGAs suck at math.

I am aware of that population difference, but this substantial variation in voter turnout rates also suggests a very large enthusiasm gap by party. If turnout is also higher among republicans within blue areas that could be enough to shift the vote margins for the state as a whole. I would not be so arrogant and assume that you are going to win something before it happens. The voting data looks very concerning for anyone that wants this measure to pass. The turnout gap has become larger since yesterday. It’s now 6% for Fauquier and 3% for Fairfax.

So much for that theory

Not that it's much of an indicator, but I have seen more "Vote NO" signs in my neighborhood than Trump signs two years ago. I haven't seen any "Vote YES" signs either.

Who needs voting data when you can count yard signs?

It's about as scientific as the early turnout data. Harris had plenty of early voters. How did that eventually work out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like this amendment is likely to fail at this point. The early voter turnout from red areas is much higher than blue areas. Eg. The early voter turnout from Republican Fauquier county is 5.4%. The turnout from Fairfax county is only 2.6%. There is a very strong gradient between the percentage share of the county that voted republican in 2024 and the early voter turnout. This data also suggests that even within counties republicans are more likely to vote on this amendment than Dems. Unless turnout improves in democratic leaning areas, this amendment is likely to fail or it will be approved by a very slim margin.

Fauquier County has 75,000 people...Fairfax County has 1.15MM.

MAGAs suck at math.

I am aware of that population difference, but this substantial variation in voter turnout rates also suggests a very large enthusiasm gap by party. If turnout is also higher among republicans within blue areas that could be enough to shift the vote margins for the state as a whole. I would not be so arrogant and assume that you are going to win something before it happens. The voting data looks very concerning for anyone that wants this measure to pass. The turnout gap has become larger since yesterday. It’s now 6% for Fauquier and 3% for Fairfax.

So much for that theory

Not that it's much of an indicator, but I have seen more "Vote NO" signs in my neighborhood than Trump signs two years ago. I haven't seen any "Vote YES" signs either.

Who needs voting data when you can count yard signs?

I always vote by counting yard signs on my way to the voting location. In the case of a tie, I flip a coin while in the voting booth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The claim that this is temporary makes no sense at all.
Democrats claim they are doing this to "restore fairness."
So, you are temporarily going to change the districts, then go back to the way they were when they weren't fair?

You think we need a longer-term plan to deal with Republican shenanigans?

I think you need to be honest.

Either it is not at all temporary or it is not at all about restoring fairness.

It is temporary. Additional legislation would be required for the next scheduled redistricting in 5 years.

It is about restoring fairness nationwide, not within VA.

Fck the VA Republicans. They wanted to force vaginal ultrasounds on women. They supported Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like this amendment is likely to fail at this point. The early voter turnout from red areas is much higher than blue areas. Eg. The early voter turnout from Republican Fauquier county is 5.4%. The turnout from Fairfax county is only 2.6%. There is a very strong gradient between the percentage share of the county that voted republican in 2024 and the early voter turnout. This data also suggests that even within counties republicans are more likely to vote on this amendment than Dems. Unless turnout improves in democratic leaning areas, this amendment is likely to fail or it will be approved by a very slim margin.

Fauquier County has 75,000 people...Fairfax County has 1.15MM.

MAGAs suck at math.

I am aware of that population difference, but this substantial variation in voter turnout rates also suggests a very large enthusiasm gap by party. If turnout is also higher among republicans within blue areas that could be enough to shift the vote margins for the state as a whole. I would not be so arrogant and assume that you are going to win something before it happens. The voting data looks very concerning for anyone that wants this measure to pass. The turnout gap has become larger since yesterday. It’s now 6% for Fauquier and 3% for Fairfax.

So much for that theory

Not that it's much of an indicator, but I have seen more "Vote NO" signs in my neighborhood than Trump signs two years ago. I haven't seen any "Vote YES" signs either.

Who needs voting data when you can count yard signs?

I always vote by counting yard signs on my way to the voting location. In the case of a tie, I flip a coin while in the voting booth.

I always vote the way they tell me on a mommy site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The claim that this is temporary makes no sense at all.
Democrats claim they are doing this to "restore fairness."
So, you are temporarily going to change the districts, then go back to the way they were when they weren't fair?

You think we need a longer-term plan to deal with Republican shenanigans?

I think you need to be honest.

Either it is not at all temporary or it is not at all about restoring fairness.

It is temporary. Additional legislation would be required for the next scheduled redistricting in 5 years.

It is about restoring fairness nationwide, not within VA.

Fck the VA Republicans. They wanted to force vaginal ultrasounds on women. They supported Trump.

Not really. In five years redistricting will go to the commission that failed five years ago to come to an agreement. That commission will fail again, and It then goes to the judiciary. So, just stack the courts over the next five years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The claim that this is temporary makes no sense at all.
Democrats claim they are doing this to "restore fairness."
So, you are temporarily going to change the districts, then go back to the way they were when they weren't fair?

You think we need a longer-term plan to deal with Republican shenanigans?

I think you need to be honest.

Either it is not at all temporary or it is not at all about restoring fairness.

It is temporary. Additional legislation would be required for the next scheduled redistricting in 5 years.

It is about restoring fairness nationwide, not within VA.

Fck the VA Republicans. They wanted to force vaginal ultrasounds on women. They supported Trump.

So, once again... Democrats claim that this is merely temporary in order to "restore fairness."
And, then it would go back to being unfair in 2031.
This makes no sense. And, you know it. Because - you KNOW it is not temporary nor is it fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The claim that this is temporary makes no sense at all.
Democrats claim they are doing this to "restore fairness."
So, you are temporarily going to change the districts, then go back to the way they were when they weren't fair?

You think we need a longer-term plan to deal with Republican shenanigans?

I think you need to be honest.

Either it is not at all temporary or it is not at all about restoring fairness.

It is temporary. Additional legislation would be required for the next scheduled redistricting in 5 years.

It is about restoring fairness nationwide, not within VA.

Fck the VA Republicans. They wanted to force vaginal ultrasounds on women. They supported Trump.

Not really. In five years redistricting will go to the commission that failed five years ago to come to an agreement. That commission will fail again, and It then goes to the judiciary. So, just stack the courts over the next five years.

You mean, exactly what the Republicans do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The claim that this is temporary makes no sense at all.
Democrats claim they are doing this to "restore fairness."
So, you are temporarily going to change the districts, then go back to the way they were when they weren't fair?

You think we need a longer-term plan to deal with Republican shenanigans?

I think you need to be honest.

Either it is not at all temporary or it is not at all about restoring fairness.

It is temporary. Additional legislation would be required for the next scheduled redistricting in 5 years.

It is about restoring fairness nationwide, not within VA.

Fck the VA Republicans. They wanted to force vaginal ultrasounds on women. They supported Trump.

So, once again... Democrats claim that this is merely temporary in order to "restore fairness."
And, then it would go back to being unfair in 2031.
This makes no sense. And, you know it. Because - you KNOW it is not temporary nor is it fair.

So much whining. It is temporary. And is intended to restore fairness nationwide.

Does it fck over VA Republicans? I hope so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The claim that this is temporary makes no sense at all.
Democrats claim they are doing this to "restore fairness."
So, you are temporarily going to change the districts, then go back to the way they were when they weren't fair?

You think we need a longer-term plan to deal with Republican shenanigans?

I think you need to be honest.

Either it is not at all temporary or it is not at all about restoring fairness.

It is temporary. Additional legislation would be required for the next scheduled redistricting in 5 years.

It is about restoring fairness nationwide, not within VA.

Fck the VA Republicans. They wanted to force vaginal ultrasounds on women. They supported Trump.

So, once again... Democrats claim that this is merely temporary in order to "restore fairness."
And, then it would go back to being unfair in 2031.
This makes no sense. And, you know it. Because - you KNOW it is not temporary nor is it fair.

So much whining. It is temporary. And is intended to restore fairness nationwide.

Does it fck over VA Republicans? I hope so.

And, you just explained yourself. You don't care about half of the Virginians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The claim that this is temporary makes no sense at all.
Democrats claim they are doing this to "restore fairness."
So, you are temporarily going to change the districts, then go back to the way they were when they weren't fair?

You think we need a longer-term plan to deal with Republican shenanigans?

I think you need to be honest.

Either it is not at all temporary or it is not at all about restoring fairness.

It is temporary. Additional legislation would be required for the next scheduled redistricting in 5 years.

It is about restoring fairness nationwide, not within VA.

Fck the VA Republicans. They wanted to force vaginal ultrasounds on women. They supported Trump.

So, once again... Democrats claim that this is merely temporary in order to "restore fairness."
And, then it would go back to being unfair in 2031.
This makes no sense. And, you know it. Because - you KNOW it is not temporary nor is it fair.

So much whining. It is temporary. And is intended to restore fairness nationwide.

Does it fck over VA Republicans? I hope so.

And, you just explained yourself. You don't care about half of the Virginians.

Yes, as I said earlier, fck the VA Republicans.

[Anonymous]

If you live innN Arlington and supported Dem candidates nationally and locally for decades, canvassed for them, then VA Dems ans DCUM trolls say FCK U because you lose Beyer and his constituent services (including passport acceptance sessions, support job fairs for federal workers, etc.) And you will be lumped in with red rural VA and likely get a R representative. It is not temporary,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you live innN Arlington and supported Dem candidates nationally and locally for decades, canvassed for them, then VA Dems ans DCUM trolls say FCK U because you lose Beyer and his constituent services (including passport acceptance sessions, support job fairs for federal workers, etc.) And you will be lumped in with red rural VA and likely get a R representative. It is not temporary,

Are you having a stroke?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you live innN Arlington and supported Dem candidates nationally and locally for decades, canvassed for them, then VA Dems ans DCUM trolls say FCK U because you lose Beyer and his constituent services (including passport acceptance sessions, support job fairs for federal workers, etc.) And you will be lumped in with red rural VA and likely get a R representative. It is not temporary,

Are you having a stroke?

Yeah 2 typos and you are doomed. Are you a paid troll?