Hacker News Reader

Comment by harry8 | Hacker News Reader

Gerry Mander.

You can't talk about any of these individual problems without talking about how the corruption of democracy that is the Gerry Mander and is the norm on both sides of the aisle.

I have no idea about Feinstein but everything said here is consistent with the actions of a person who can only lose office through criminal prosecution. And is being blackmailed by those who have the surveillance data.

Mad conspiracy theory. Zero evidence for it. As insane as the things Assange said before Snowden showed he was absolutely right.

By the way. I don't /like/ Assange any more than the editor of the New York Times or any other public figure. I have a lot of trouble swallowing the rape story. I'd that normal nowadays or people still hate him because he's as Russian as Donald or something?

View on HN

She's a senator, so gerrymandering is not the problem. It's a statewide election without districts.

The problem is that she has a (D) after her name in CA and that's all it takes to get elected. She did some good things in the 80s, apparently, and has been riding on that since then because my entire adult life she's been on the wrong side of just about every big vote.

That sounds ridiculous. I can totally buy that CAs don't want to vote for a republican, but don't other democrats exist?

EDIT: Looks like she's still what Californians want.

> De León's 12% was the lowest ever recorded for a candidate who advanced to the general election since California instituted its jungle primary rules in 2016. In July, De León won the endorsement of California Democratic Party at their executive board meeting in Oakland.

> On November 6, 2018, Feinstein defeated De León 54.2% to 45.8%.

That is an extreme oversimplification. Reputation is important for politics. Dianne is well known around the state and De Leon is not. If a politician with some momentum would take her on then she would likely fall but that would mean causing flak with the Democratic party machine.

Apparently she is not well-known enough, or rather - her actual _policies_ and their implications are not well known enough.

It is more complex than that. People who actually vote consistently tend to be older. Many such have strong feelings for Dianne because she was there when it happened and many old voters associate her with their feelings when they heard that they had lost Moscone and Milk together in a senseless freak out that disrupted their local government. This is part of why she and her followers keep trying to do to guns what we did to drugs.

Wanting to rebel for justice is great, but daring to trivialize the past will tend to trip you up. If the present situation teaches us anything is that morons can be formidable foes.

Yes, I am aware of the loyalty older voters have to her and why. I wish they would pay attention to what the impact of her actual decisions are in the present, but I do get it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com