Leaving out ..EMOTION... where is Feinstein's great appeal?
- Thread starter Lavan
- Start date
That's a good question. I think it depends on what you mean by "huge support". Yes, she gets plenty of votes, and that's huge, but those votes come primarily from the SF Bay area and LA area. These are both dense, urban areas saturated with (predictably) liberal media. Many people, even voters, are simpletons and can be led easily. Presto--Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi.
Tim
Tim
Wildalaska
Moderator
she delivers for her constituents
WildbottomlineAlaska
WildbottomlineAlaska
Maybe that's my REAL question.
I got room for liberals in my sandbox. But why do people who can afford LA and the Bay Area want to get rid of self defense guns?
Yes I ....KNOW.... that "they" will have bodyguards and CCW....but.... it really WOULD take a simpleton to think that a bodyguard or a CCW can save yer ass if things REALLY got hairy. And "simpletons".....USUALLY....don't make that much money.
Exceptions abound, I know.
I got room for liberals in my sandbox. But why do people who can afford LA and the Bay Area want to get rid of self defense guns?
Yes I ....KNOW.... that "they" will have bodyguards and CCW....but.... it really WOULD take a simpleton to think that a bodyguard or a CCW can save yer ass if things REALLY got hairy. And "simpletons".....USUALLY....don't make that much money.
Exceptions abound, I know.
Mad Martigan
New member
Feinstein enjoys a huge following of hoeplessly unrealistic people who easily identify with the unrealistic stances she esposes. Why would Arnie want to put himself at odds with someone as popular as that?
Feinstein
OhmyGod! Who had to bring up that ginch from the bathhouse distict of the Republik of Kalifornia? When I gaze out over the arid, drouth stricken Great American desert here in the Cross Timbers of Texas in this 100+ degrees of summer heat, I thank our Maker that there is a huge American Republic where we can own and buy and sell guns and hunt, as our ancesters did, no protected species of varmints, animal or human (well almost). Where there is a legislated death penalty for they who would harm ourselves, our families, carjack, murder, steal, and plunder. How great it is! And as Archie Bunker says, "When is St. Andreas going to dump those misfits into the Pacific ocean"?
OhmyGod! Who had to bring up that ginch from the bathhouse distict of the Republik of Kalifornia? When I gaze out over the arid, drouth stricken Great American desert here in the Cross Timbers of Texas in this 100+ degrees of summer heat, I thank our Maker that there is a huge American Republic where we can own and buy and sell guns and hunt, as our ancesters did, no protected species of varmints, animal or human (well almost). Where there is a legislated death penalty for they who would harm ourselves, our families, carjack, murder, steal, and plunder. How great it is! And as Archie Bunker says, "When is St. Andreas going to dump those misfits into the Pacific ocean"?
Except for the issue of guns, she's basically a middle of the road democrat, especially when compared to the likes of Babs Boxer and Shrill Pelosi. Being that democrats in California number about 60/40 to republicans, that makes her popular. If Boxer is going to continue to get re-elected time and time again, Feinstein certainly will.
Mannlicher
New member
She represents the most liberal place in America. She was Mayor of San Fran for 10 years. She espouses every whacko left wing idea or proposal that comes down the pike. She is a chronic and pathological lier. She should be prosecuted for sedition, and treason. The list goes on and on. Evidently, some folks like this kind of politician.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Oh. My. God.
WildwhymustpoliticaldiscusssionsdegenerateintothatAlaska
leadcounsel
Moderator
I see gun issues maily dividing people into two camps:
Independent people who "do for themselves"-- these are the folks that attempt to resolve problems on their own.
Then there's the Dependent people who "call for help"
California is mainly the dependent people.
It's rather easy to convince her followers in CA:
The rich don't have any need for guns in their lifestyles because they don't have time, desire, and they can hire security and live in the best neighborhoods. Crime is probably a rarity to them and they can be led to easily believe that guns are for criminals. And, most of them probably have little education and no understanding of the Constitution, history, wars, worldwide events, etc. They are rich because they are probably good at some useless skills that happen to pay fabulously well.
They control the leadership.
Then there's the shrinking California middle class. Probably most of this class voted for Bush. I think Bush got a large number of votes in California, and I would guess mainly from the middle class. These people probably see guns as a mixed bag. Criminals use them, laws are useless, and citizens should have them. These people are the reason that citizens can have some guns. These are the independent folks.
Then there's the middle class who are the dependent folks;
The middle class duke it out but the dependent folks probably outnumber the independent folks.
Then there's the poor, uneducated, indifferent people, maybe illegals, who probably don't even know the laws and don't care. They don't vote so it doesn't matter what their opinions are.
It takes an analytical mind to truly understand the gun control debate. It's easier to convince an uninformed person that guns=crime. And, since most of Californians are uninformed, non-analytical, or indifferent then they don't get it so it's easier to follow and anti-gun leader.
Independent people who "do for themselves"-- these are the folks that attempt to resolve problems on their own.
Then there's the Dependent people who "call for help"
California is mainly the dependent people.
It's rather easy to convince her followers in CA:
The rich don't have any need for guns in their lifestyles because they don't have time, desire, and they can hire security and live in the best neighborhoods. Crime is probably a rarity to them and they can be led to easily believe that guns are for criminals. And, most of them probably have little education and no understanding of the Constitution, history, wars, worldwide events, etc. They are rich because they are probably good at some useless skills that happen to pay fabulously well.
They control the leadership.
Then there's the shrinking California middle class. Probably most of this class voted for Bush. I think Bush got a large number of votes in California, and I would guess mainly from the middle class. These people probably see guns as a mixed bag. Criminals use them, laws are useless, and citizens should have them. These people are the reason that citizens can have some guns. These are the independent folks.
Then there's the middle class who are the dependent folks;
The middle class duke it out but the dependent folks probably outnumber the independent folks.
Then there's the poor, uneducated, indifferent people, maybe illegals, who probably don't even know the laws and don't care. They don't vote so it doesn't matter what their opinions are.
It takes an analytical mind to truly understand the gun control debate. It's easier to convince an uninformed person that guns=crime. And, since most of Californians are uninformed, non-analytical, or indifferent then they don't get it so it's easier to follow and anti-gun leader.
Baba Louie
New member
She wisely exploited a tragedy, promises were made to never allow it to happen again, she IS a female with a dominant personality and as WA said, she brings the bacon back home.
What did her seat in the Senate cost last election? Over $25,000,000...?
Right place, right time, right words, great positioning.
A formidable foe, neh? One to reckon with at the very least.
What did her seat in the Senate cost last election? Over $25,000,000...?
Right place, right time, right words, great positioning.
A formidable foe, neh? One to reckon with at the very least.
Mannlicher
New member
Good question Wild
I guess thats the nature of the beast.
I guess thats the nature of the beast.
Leadcounsel, I think you're confusing "education" with "intelligence." From what I've seen, you don't make gigabucks without a piece of paper what sez you bin dun edjamacated, and yet most PhDs I've met have the survival quotient of, to quote Terry Pratchett, a jellyfish in a blast furnace.
Wildalaska
Moderator
WildgonnathinkaboutthatoneAlaska
Baba Louie
New member
I don't know about the Jewish vote but she definitely was there immediately after Moscone's (and Milk) death, rallied the city, became Mayor (twice elected) then came to be elected for the last two years of John Seymour's temp Senate seat... (92?) (he filled in for Pete Wilson when Wilson was elected Governor)... and she's been there ever since.
She's about 73 + years old now (born in '33), probably doesn't have too many terms left in her, so maybe the good people of California will elect Arnold (yeah, right) to fill her stead. I'm not holding my breath waiting.
She wisely turned everyone's focus from Anti-Gay hatred to anti-gun after Moscone/Milk's assassination (look up Don White, the anti-gay assassin of those two). I say "wisely" in that it worked for her at that point in time. The fact that she was head of the City's Board of Supervisors and knew her City politics (thus state and some national politicians as well) helped.
You are only as strong as your enemies. She is a formidable foe. Knows how to work a crowd. Raise money.
Do you? (rhetorical ? in nature)
Boxer is another formidable foe. Also female, also of the Jewish faith (FWIW?) strong on female issues, gun control, environment, etc and has seen her election numbers go UP each time she's on the ballot. She's only 65 so you can expect her to remain for maybe 2 more terms... maybe 3.
Both ladies could be seen as loud mouthed, opinionated & pushy... in fact they are. Their constituients love 'em dearly. The NRA makes money off 'em using the "threat of more gun control if they have their way, just send $25.00 or more to help defeat them".
Business as usual.
She's about 73 + years old now (born in '33), probably doesn't have too many terms left in her, so maybe the good people of California will elect Arnold (yeah, right) to fill her stead. I'm not holding my breath waiting.
She wisely turned everyone's focus from Anti-Gay hatred to anti-gun after Moscone/Milk's assassination (look up Don White, the anti-gay assassin of those two). I say "wisely" in that it worked for her at that point in time. The fact that she was head of the City's Board of Supervisors and knew her City politics (thus state and some national politicians as well) helped.
You are only as strong as your enemies. She is a formidable foe. Knows how to work a crowd. Raise money.
Do you? (rhetorical ? in nature)
Boxer is another formidable foe. Also female, also of the Jewish faith (FWIW?) strong on female issues, gun control, environment, etc and has seen her election numbers go UP each time she's on the ballot. She's only 65 so you can expect her to remain for maybe 2 more terms... maybe 3.
Both ladies could be seen as loud mouthed, opinionated & pushy... in fact they are. Their constituients love 'em dearly. The NRA makes money off 'em using the "threat of more gun control if they have their way, just send $25.00 or more to help defeat them".
Business as usual.
MeekAndMild
New member
Follow the money, of course. She's rich and has wealthy connections through her husband's business interests. As Wild says she comes through for her constituents. For the typical big city Democrat that includes welfare, government contracts, political favors and influence peddling.
The idea is that for a person like her to be successful in politics has to look like they're giving their people more than they're stealing and the stealing needs to come from somewhere outside the boundary of their voting area.
My 2 cents worth of course. I wouldn't know her from Huey P Long, George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Mayor Dailey, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmie Carter or the Kennedy crowd. They are all the same, though of the whole bunch I despise Carter the most because he claims to be religious while he and his family have lived off the poor folk for the past 75 years.
*No I can't find an online reference for this, but his biography mentioned the foreclosures and the steps his father took to accumulate farmland during the great depression.*
The idea is that for a person like her to be successful in politics has to look like they're giving their people more than they're stealing and the stealing needs to come from somewhere outside the boundary of their voting area.
My 2 cents worth of course. I wouldn't know her from Huey P Long, George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Mayor Dailey, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmie Carter or the Kennedy crowd. They are all the same, though of the whole bunch I despise Carter the most because he claims to be religious while he and his family have lived off the poor folk for the past 75 years.
*No I can't find an online reference for this, but his biography mentioned the foreclosures and the steps his father took to accumulate farmland during the great depression.*