Democrats, DTS Registrations Way Up in California; Crying Towels for Republicans

Two items to mention:

First off, fellow blogger Chris Prevatt Gila posted on Marty Wisckoll’s new political pulse project for snapshot polling.  A scan at Red County blog shows Matt Cunningham rallying the right wingers to sign up because Marty reports strong responses from Democrats and an tepid one from Republicans.  Start getting used to it Matt.  Change is coming!

And a HT to Tomahawk, who, while lacking the courage to post under his real name, reports voter registration in California is soaring for Democrats and DTSers, while Republican enrollment is down.

The number of registered voters in California currently stands at 15,439,088, which is an increase of 10,624 since October.The number of registered Republicans in California currently stands at 5,199,523, which is a decrease of 25,001 since October.

The number of registered Democrats in California currently stands at 6,580,678, which is an increase of 18,026 since October.

The number of registered Decline to State in California currently stands at 2,974,856, which is an increase of 18,977 since October.

How many days until we start calling Matt’s Blog, “Blue County?”

  31 comments for “Democrats, DTS Registrations Way Up in California; Crying Towels for Republicans

  1. December 12, 2007 at 11:47 pm

    And a HT to Tomahawk, who, while lacking the courage to post under his real name…

    Cheap shot, Dan. I don’t see many gutsy posts from you ever putting a Democrat in a negative light. Profile in courage.

    How many days until we start calling Matt’s Blog, “Blue County?”

    Now you’re a profile in delusion.

  2. December 13, 2007 at 6:51 am

    Marty reports strong responses from Democrats and an tepid one from Republicans. Start getting used to it Matt. Change is coming!

    Keep your shirt on, Dan. Martin told me word about his project had gotten out virally among Dems, hence the stronger response than Reps, so I offered to post about it in order to help get the word out among Reps. Latching this to the CA GOP’s registration woes doesn’t even rise to the level of a stretch.

  3. Dan Chmielewski
    December 13, 2007 at 8:59 am

    Matt –
    I post under my own name. An while “Jubal” is a brand, your identity is widely known. Cheap shot? I disagree. But I did like his post.

    Since you’re good at suggesting people take reading comprehensive, sign up for one yourself. The top of the post reference two things. I am not latching Marty’s instant poll response from Republicans to the decline of Republican registration. They are two distrinctive different ideas latching into one post.

  4. December 13, 2007 at 9:30 am

    Dan:

    Yes, it was a cheap and unnecessary shot. My identity wasn’t known for the first year-and-a-half I published OC Blog. Sometimes it is necessary for people to use a pseudonym in order to blog. I’ve noticed that those who accuse pseudonymous bloggers of lacking “courage” have little to lose themselves by posting under their own names.

    As for reading comprehension, don’t blame me for lack of clarity in your post:

    A scan at Red County blog shows Matt Cunningham rallying the right wingers to sign up because Marty reports strong responses from Democrats and an tepid one from Republicans. Start getting used to it Matt. Change is coming!

    Start getting “used” to what “change”? More Dems than Reps applying for an online focus group? What exactly does that portend?

  5. just asking
    December 13, 2007 at 10:54 am

    matt,

    Why when threads have not gone your way, such as the SunCal and Urell issues, you’ve questioned my annonimity? Even called me a coward for not using my name. Dan’s acurate statement on Tomahawk is fair, as is his comment of your continued use of the Jubal nomiker.

    just…asking?

  6. December 13, 2007 at 11:28 am

    Just…asking:

    That’s on occasions when you used your pseudonymity to take cheap, personal shots at me, rather than argue the issue.

    I have no problem with you using a pseudonym. But I think it’s an abuse of it to attack my integrity because you get peeved at me over those issues.

    Since Dan has no idea why Tomahawk uses a pseudonym, he’s not in a position to judge Tomahawk’s courage or lack thereof.

  7. Dan Chmielewski
    December 13, 2007 at 12:04 pm

    Matt — On matters of who I think has courage or not, well I’m the decider here.

  8. December 13, 2007 at 12:11 pm

    What does that mean?

  9. RHackett
    December 14, 2007 at 7:55 am

    Jubal.

    Please refrain from invective directed at those posting under pseudonyms. You started the OC Blog posting as Jubal. You’re identity was revealed via an article in the OC Weekly when they “outed” you citing specific examples of you writing to Jubal as Matt Cunningham on the Flash Report and vice versa. You had a whole Barry Gordon/The Flash routine going on until then.

    Those of us who have followed the OC blogosphere have noticed your remarks and commentary become significantly less virulent when your identity was made known.

  10. Dan Chmielewski
    December 14, 2007 at 8:30 am

    Hackett — a correction…a Barry *Allen*/Flash thing or a Barbara Gordon/Batgirl thing.

    Looking forward to ComicCon next July

  11. December 14, 2007 at 8:46 am

    Please refrain from invective directed at those posting under pseudonyms. You started the OC Blog posting as Jubal. You’re identity was revealed via an article in the OC Weekly when they “outed” you citing specific examples of you writing to Jubal as Matt Cunningham on the Flash Report and vice versa.

    RHackett:

    I’m beginning to wonder if you capable of NOT misconstruing what I say.

    I have never, ever criticized anyone for using a pseudonym. But if one uses a pseudonym, it shouldn’t be abused as a shield to attack people’s character, integrity or personal lives. So I have been critical of just…asking when he/she has done that to me.

    As for history my pseudonymous days, I’ll try to bring you up to speed. By the beginning of 2006, my identity was an open secret among a growing number of readers. The “outing” was a gradual process. I went on “Inside OC” as Jubal, but their attempts to mask my identity fell short and it was pretty clear it was me.

    Allan Bartlett subsequently posted that fact on his blog.

    The Weekly jumped in a few months later as payback, after I shredded a couple of articles Swaim and another one of them wrote. While he had Brennan writing the hit piece, Swaim was chatting me up via e-mail, being chummy and picking my brain about OC GOP politics — never mentioning that as we corresponded, his reporter was putting together an article accusing me of selling positive coverage in exchange for ads. What a great guy.

    And since the Weekly is so widely read, the paper had been on the stands nearly two days before I heard a peep out of anyone about the article. More people found out about via my “I Am Jubal” post than from reading the Weekly.

  12. Dan Chmielewski
    December 14, 2007 at 9:10 am

    “And since the Weekly is so widely read, the paper had been on the stands nearly two days before I heard a peep out of anyone about the article. More people found out about via my “I Am Jubal” post than from reading the Weekly.”

    Replace the word “people” with “Republicans.” Lefites devour the Weekly every Thursday.

    And Tomahawk’s identity was outed at Drinking Liberally last night; I stand by my original assessment. And for the record, I detest anonymous blog posters; comments, well, you have to expect that.

  13. RLG
    December 14, 2007 at 9:45 am

    John Edwards is the BEST presidential candidate for America. Let’s elect him for EIGHT years!!

  14. December 14, 2007 at 9:55 am

    Replace the word “people” with “Republicans.” Lefites devour the Weekly every Thursday.

    And there are soooo many of them in OC.

    And Tomahawk’s identity was outed at Drinking Liberally last night; I stand by my original assessment.

    Oooo…a regular gathering of sleuths. Stand by your assessment all you want, Dan. It remains an unnecessary cheap shot. And if I recall, Dan, when you began commenting on OC Blog, for a long time you were simply “DanC” — not exactly a pseudonym, but since you’re not a household name, it wasn’t exactly putting it out there, either.

  15. Dan Chmielewski
    December 14, 2007 at 9:57 am

    I got over it a little faster than you did.

  16. RHackett
    December 14, 2007 at 1:29 pm

    But if one uses a pseudonym, it shouldn’t be abused as a shield to attack people’s character, integrity or personal lives.

    Oh really???

    One only need looking at your archives ( http://www.ocblog.net/ocblog/2004/06/index.html ) starting in ’04 and read some of your commentary.

    In light of our recent exchange about Fleischman’s job at the OCSD this archive is especially interesting considering how you write numerous times that anyone involved in public service is a pig at the trough.

    http://www.ocblog.net/ocblog/at_the_trough/index.html

    I could make the case that several of your writings border on personal attacks and character assault prior to your ‘outing?’

    But reviewing that archive I have to ask. Why wasn’t your good buddy Fleischman considered to have his snout in the trough while he worked for the County? Or are only those not in the GOP given that honor.

    As far as the circumstances of your “outing.” What’s your point? It came from a source other than yourself. That says it all.

  17. December 14, 2007 at 2:04 pm

    RHackett:

    First, congratulations on actually doing some research for a change.

    Yep, I’ve written some pretty tough and harsh posts. Yes, my generally posts aren’t as harsh as then, partly because my identity is known and but in large part because I just don’t. The invective-level in my opinion writing has continually declined over the years.

    That said, even when I’ve criticized or speculated on politicians motives, that’s a far cry from alleging they’re are saying things they don’t believe because they are paid to, or posting rumors about people personal lives.

    As far as the circumstances of your “outing.” What’s your point? It came from a source other than yourself. That says it all.

    And what’s your point? I had no obligation to reveal my identity.

    this archive is especially interesting considering how you write numerous times that anyone involved in public service is a pig at the trough.

    Really? Where did I say that? Yes, I named that category “At The Trough.” It’s an irreverent blog thing. Kind of like the categories here. Otherwise, you doing that patented RHackett generalization ad absurdum.

  18. December 14, 2007 at 2:05 pm

    I got over it a little faster than you did.

    At least fast enough to condemn others for what you had no problem doing yourself.

  19. RHackett
    December 14, 2007 at 2:16 pm

    Really? Where did I say that? Yes, I named that category “At The Trough.” It’s an irreverent blog thing. Kind of like the categories here. Otherwise, you doing that patented RHackett generalization ad absurdum.

    Okay. I should state that you don’t say “anyone” is at the trough. Only those not in your little club. It’s a generalization you applied to others. Yet your buddy Fleischman wasn’t at the trough. In fact just the opposite you questioned my statements as to what made me the arbiter of how many positions in the OCSD was the proper number. I can easily turn that around on you given your “at the trough” comments. What makes you the arbiter of what is the proper number of positions in a governmental entity and what makes you the arbiter in determining whether or not their compensation is proper?

    My point about your “outing” is that you imply you’re identity was known prior to the OC Weekly. I certainly didn’t know. And I didn’t watch the episode where your identity was obscured. I discovered via the OC Weekly. After which time you came out of the closet. So to speak. While you may believe it was an eventuality, it certainly wasn’t to me. And I doubt I’m alone. Are you going to tell us with a straight face you were about to reveal identity irrespective of the OC Weekly?

  20. December 14, 2007 at 2:39 pm

    Okay. I should state that you don’t say “anyone” is at the trough. Only those not in your little club.

    RHackett — with you around to tell me what i think and what I mean, I might as well just let you do all my thinking for me.

    Are you going to tell us with a straight face you were about to reveal identity irrespective of the OC Weekly?

    Not right at that precise moment, but I had been thinking about it for a while. I didn’t see the point in maintaining a secret that wasn’t very secret, and was less secret all the time. The immediate reason for my “I Am Jubal” post was the Weekly article, but I would have written it within a month or two in any case. I was then entering into discussion with Red County and moving forward with a secret identity wasn’t feasible.

  21. RHackett
    December 14, 2007 at 4:13 pm

    RHackett — with you around to tell me what i think and what I mean, I might as well just let you do all my thinking for me.

    No sweat. It won’t take very long. Tell me where I’m wrong. Tell me where you have pointed out one of those you support in public service as having their nose in the trough. Someone like Carona, Fleischman, or Mike Schroeder’s wife. How about Bill Campbell? When you can do that, I will immediately retract any of the derogatory remarks I have made about your double standards.

  22. Dan Chmielewski
    December 14, 2007 at 5:06 pm

    “At least fast enough to condemn others for what you had no problem doing yourself.”

    well, if I could turn on the wayback machine and fix it, I would. It was about the time I read an article on blogging that basically siad with attaching your name, anything you say really doesn’t matter. Commenting anonmously or using a nickname doesn’t bother me, even when I’m called a nazi, and even Chuck DeVore blasts people who won’t post under a real name.

    But every post I have authored here as had my full name. When you open the Red County blog to a lefty like me to post, I’d be sure to do so under my own name.

  23. Hydrangea
    December 14, 2007 at 5:10 pm

    Ccccccaaa ca ca can’t we all just get along?

    OK, lets flip a coin…heads RHackett get to be Jerry Springer and tails Jubal gets to be Heraldo and you both can throw chairs at each other….. HA ha ah ahah a.

    Damn and here I thought Art the lunatic Palido had brought us all together. I musta been smokin too much medicinal weed!

    If I ever get to meet you two i’m gonna shoot you fulla Thorazine and maybe then you’ll calm down.

    I think you two hatchet carrying Machavellian typs are actually doing this on purpose, cause it sure is entertaining and all but don’t you think that with Moorlach (ala Henry the VIII) sharpening his knives muttering under his breath incantations using Street’s name, Janet eyeballing Chris Norby for more salacious tidbits (like at night he sneaks into her office and watdches football on the NFL channel on her flat screen) you guys could write something meaningful?

    Isn’t there a law about abusing computer electrons?

    Now I remember the reason why I stopped reading the blogs……there’s not yellow enough in their journalism!

  24. Dan Chmielewski
    December 14, 2007 at 5:29 pm

    Actually, Matt is just armoring up for the 2008 election cycle. So am I. We’ll be going after each other pretty hard. I broke out my cup for the primary.

  25. Publius reborn
    December 14, 2007 at 10:19 pm

    The Federalist Papers were published by Madison and Hamilton under pseudonyms. It’s effective; therefore, the invective.

  26. December 14, 2007 at 11:57 pm

    Tell me where you have pointed out one of those you support in public service as having their nose in the trough.

    RHackett, you concoct a false premise and then you challenge me to answer it. Are you able to ask anything except “when did you stop beating your wife” questions?

  27. RHackett
    December 15, 2007 at 7:31 am

    Actually Jubal there is no false premise.

    You’ve stated in previous writings those in public service have “their snouts in the trough.”

    The individuals I listed are or have drawn paychecks from governmental entities.

    Could you explain why those individuals don’t have “their snouts in the trough?”

    It’s a simple question, and you once again reply with a HS debate tactic. The only one who believes you is yourself. It’s pretty transparent that you apply a double standard to those you dislike who participate in the same activity as those you consider “friends.”

  28. December 15, 2007 at 12:04 pm

    You’ve stated in previous writings those in public service have “their snouts in the trough.”

    Where have I said that?

    It’s pretty transparent that you apply a double standard to those you dislike who participate in the same activity as those you consider “friends.”

    It’s apparent to you, RHackett, because you’ve circular-reasoned yourself into thinking that’s a fact.

  29. RHackett
    December 15, 2007 at 12:42 pm

    Where have I said that?

    http://www.ocblog.net/ocblog/at_the_trough/index.html

    Click the link to read past writings of your detailing individuals who you claim are “at the trough.” If that doesn’t help you, it is only because you lack the ability to grasp your own writings.

    It’s apparent to you, RHackett, because you’ve circular-reasoned yourself into thinking that’s a fact.

    No circular reasoning. Just pointing out your usual inconsistencies and double standards.

  30. RHackett
    December 15, 2007 at 12:46 pm

    Here’s a link of yours that is especially critical of our public safety professionals whom you describe as pigs jostling over at the trough.

    http://www.ocblog.net/ocblog/2004/07/pigs_at_the_tro.html#comments

    So now that you’ve impugned those who have sworn to protect us since they receive paychecks paid for by taxpayers, where is the condemnation of those like the people I mentioned being described in a similar manner?

    Was Fleischman at the trough when he worked for the Sheriff. How about Susan Schroeder? Is she at the trough while working for the DA?

    Jubal. This is the most fun I’ve had reading your idiotic commentaries in some time.

  31. RHackett
    December 17, 2007 at 6:48 am

    Here you go Jubal. Your buddy Fleischman writes about a PR contract being given to Faublel PR for public education. Best part it is under the category “At The Trough.”

    http://www.redcounty.com/orange-county/2007/12/faubel-wins-county-contract-wo/

    I guess Jon wasn’t at the trough when he was media spokeshole for a law enforcement organization without ever having been in law enforcement.

    His post is about the funniest thing I read. I’m sure you’ll have some HS debate term to spin it as being justified and right on the mark.

Comments are closed.