Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The whole reason the NIMBY clique focuses on the Dem primary instead of putting together a Republican slate for the general election is that the much lower turnout of the primary is favorable to them. And they still can't win.
No, the problem is that a contingent of AlexDems use the term NIMBY to deride everyone who disagrees with them. Most of the people I know who are not happy with the ultra progressive local policies are Dems (mostly because I don’t really hang out with any republicans).
Yes, and they voted in the Dem primary. And lost. Stop pretending you're the great silent majority. That line has been tried and found wanting. Brown people in the West End (the bulk of non-voters) want development.
So right! I forget that 9.5-11.6% of 16% is a majority.
Turn out was crazy low. Why?
Why did so many of our fellow Dems fail to vote? Or is that a good thing as long as it doesn’t happen this November?
Because they didn't care and/or weren't interested. If they had been super upset, they would have cared/been interested and voted. Ergo, they are not super upset.
Whatever fits your narrative.
1. We should have higher turnout. If you hand me a petition to sync up the state primary with the presidential one, or something like that, I will sign it.
2. The voting patterns for Hometown Girl Any Jackson and Steve "Hospitalized in CO" Peterson (concentrated on a handful of already high-turnout precincts) make it very clear that whatever an expanded electorate might or might not favor, it would not be their brand of low growth policies.