US Census Data and Anaheim Demographer’s Analysis Reveal City Has No Latino Majority District in People’s Map

No Latino Majority District in the People's Map

No Latino Majority District in the People’s Map

An analysis of census data in Anaheim concludes that none of the districts drawn by “The People’s Map” have a CVAP Latino majority.

Anaheim Councilmember Jordan Brandman was vilified for suggesting there were problems with The People’s Map and was steamrolled by a huge public outcry in which the Anaheim City Council adopted the map and sequencing demanded by residents post-haste.  This map will be voted on and likely approved by the Council at Tuesday’s meeting, but it certainly appears that Brandman’s suggestion that there were problems with this map may have been right all along.

District 1 increased almost 1% from 30.8% to 31.7 while District 2 bumped up slightly from 32.1% to 32.5%; both solid Latino pluralities.  District 3, originally left off the sequencing as Anaheim’s Latino majority district, isn’t a majority district after all.  Latino population declined from 50.8 percent to 49.1% making it the largest of the city’s three Latino plurality districts.

District 4, 5 and 6 all increased in Latino population with District 4 going from 46.8% to 47.3; District 5 went from 44.3% to 45.7% and District 6, Anaheim Hills, increased from 15.6% to 16.3%.  The city’s overall Latino population when up to 35.4% from 34.7%; again, this is CVAP statistics from the US Census Bureau.

The city’s demographer will explain all of this at Tuesday’s meeting in which the City Council is expected to give final approval to “The People’s Map.”  Frankly, there’s no real reason for them not to approve the Map and there’s no real time to make enough subtle changes to push District 3 over 50%.

In a way, these numbers serve to absolve Council member Jordan Brandman who saw problems with the People’s Map and asked for patience to resolve it.  Brandman and the Council relented and gave the people want they wanted — the People’s Map.  And now we learn the People’s Map has no Latino Majority district.  But if two Latino plurality seats were good, adding a third shouldn’t really change the equation, should it?

So now what happens?

District 3 is now a Latino plurality district, not a Latino majority one.  Anaheim has three Latino plurality districts.  Does this mean additional lawsuits?  What new demands might be made?  I have to ask, are any apologies due to Brandman from community activists, political bloggers as well as the leadership of the Democratic Party of Orange County?  I won’t hold my breath.  But while Brandman was correct about his view on the numbers; but for those loudly demanding Justice, there was no listening.

So in light of this statistical information being made public, does the Anaheim City Council’s vote Tuesday to approve the map honor the people’s wishes — a phrase often used in the December 15, 2015 meeting?  Or would Anaheim’s Latino voters have been better served by waiting an extra 60 days?  It’s impossible to find an answer that will please everyone.  I don’t anticipate the city council will do anything but approve the map.

It’s almost certain that demographer’s analysis will be ripped to shreads by pundits, but it doesn’t change statistics on residency, registered voters, and the map.

Yet what’s that line about statistics?  “Lies, damn lies and statistics.”

 

  83 comments for “US Census Data and Anaheim Demographer’s Analysis Reveal City Has No Latino Majority District in People’s Map

  1. February 5, 2016 at 6:08 pm

    Um, no. No apologies necessary. District 3 is still the most Latino district and hence deserved to be able to vote this year, in the wake of a lawsuit focused on Latino under-representation. Moving on…

    • February 5, 2016 at 7:08 pm

      Vern, we’ve heard repeatedly the lawsuit was designed to create a Latino majority district. Be honest. You’d never apologize to Jordan no matter how right he was and how wrong you were.

    • Matthew Cunningham
      February 5, 2016 at 8:48 pm

      Because Vern the Progressive believes in our government treating us differently because of our skin color.

      • February 6, 2016 at 1:13 pm

        No, I believe the plaintiffs won their suit.

        • Matthew Cunningham
          February 6, 2016 at 3:47 pm

          And the settlement said nothing about sequencing.

          Don’t hide behind the lawsuit. I’ve noticed that racialists like Vern, when pushed on the issue, don’t like to admit that, in reality, they think government should treat us differently depending on our skin color.

          • February 6, 2016 at 4:26 pm

            It sounds like you are against the Voting Rights Act. I bet you won’t admit THAT, will you?

            • February 6, 2016 at 4:39 pm

              If we’re quoting Dr. King, race/creed/color doesn’t matter…right? I do hope Latinos come out to vote in every election, not just November of a presidential year.

              How will you react if District 3 draws the short straw for 2018?

              • February 6, 2016 at 4:56 pm

                I answered that question before, last month. You are boring me. Check your archives.

                • February 6, 2016 at 6:13 pm

                  No new evidence was presented and she lost on summary judgment. Case is over.

                • February 7, 2016 at 10:44 am

                  I realize you can’t restrain yourself from dancing on Joel Acevedo’s grave, but I believe the topic here was the scenario of District 3 possibly having to vote again in 2018. Please try to control yourself, and focus.

                • February 7, 2016 at 12:13 pm

                  I speculated on the nature of a question posed here. No one is dancing on anyone’s grave.

                • February 7, 2016 at 5:29 pm

                  Do you realize everybody can see what you write, not just me?

                • February 8, 2016 at 11:11 am

                  If you were smarter, I could teach to you to fetch.

            • Matthew Cunningham
              February 6, 2016 at 5:02 pm

              Sounds like you don’t want to talk about your race-based approach to politics.

              For the record, I am not against the Voting Rights Act, foolish man. You might recall it was enacted to provide for color-blind election laws. That was when liberals favored a color-blind society – you remember that, don’t you?

          • February 6, 2016 at 4:38 pm

            I’ll come back later and see if Matt admits to being against the Voting Rights Act, and finds it “racialist.” Charming how Danny bats his eyelashes and averts his gaze from Matty’s opposition to the Voting Rights Act, just because Danny is in such need of friends.

  2. Squirrel
    February 5, 2016 at 6:43 pm

    When’s Donna gonna apologize for insisting Joey was shot while handcuffed?

    • February 6, 2016 at 1:12 pm

      SHE didn’t see that happen. But several other people did.

      The relevance, here?

      • February 6, 2016 at 2:03 pm

        Perhaps it has something to do with honesty. Several people saw this and none came forward?

        • February 7, 2016 at 10:48 am

          So, this IS on topic, because you and your anonymous friends believe that Donna is a liar, and any liar can be a topic of this thread. Got it.

          Behold the comfortable white man from Irvine, puzzling over how it could be a difficult and brave thing for undocumented Mexicans and other minorities in a barrio to come out and testify against gang cops. And for that matter, several of them HAVE. It might even trickle into your consciousness some day, but you’re not worth bothering with on this case.

          • Pinky
            February 7, 2016 at 4:07 pm

            Joel came out of a stolen car and shot opps after laying in wait. Donna presented no evidence to Dispute this.

          • February 8, 2016 at 11:17 am

            There are laws that protect undocumented immigrants who witness crime or are victims of crime. Should they come forward, it can make them eligible for a U-Visa. I have a copy of the court filings on the dismissed lawsuit and the DA’s investigation of the case. There was only one witness and the physical evidence in the case seems to contradict her statements. But there are no winners here. Its a tragic case all the way around. There have been a number of positive developments with Anaheim police and the community since, so there is a positive coming from this tragedy.

  3. Commenting Gnome
    February 5, 2016 at 9:55 pm

    And if the numbers turn out to be wrong, will you run a retraction?

    • February 5, 2016 at 10:05 pm

      Sure. But right now, I’m running the numbers the city has posted.

      • February 6, 2016 at 12:47 am

        It wouldn’t be a retraction. It would be a story about the city correcting the numbers they posted

  4. Jeff LeTourneau
    February 6, 2016 at 1:36 am

    The very suggestion that Jordan is owed an apology is as absurd as it is politically tone deaf. The appropriate outrage was directed at Jordans total lack of respect for the democratic process. To attempt to disregard a long and carefully considered mapping process and to deny the largest Latino District the right to vote during a major voting cycle while carving up District 3 so he would not have to face Dr. Moreno in an election was a brazen act of political self preservation. No apologist vision of history will change that fact!

    • Gustavo Arellano
      February 6, 2016 at 6:14 am

      Jeff: We’re talking about Dan and his pal Matty, two of the most noxious apologists in the land.

      • February 6, 2016 at 7:20 am

        So the Village Voice sells last fall for a few bucks over $1 million with about 2.5 times your readership. You guys have been for sale for over a year and I’m told by media analysts your fair sale price is between 3.5 to 5.5 times your monthly cash flow and assumes no debt. Which means your publication could be had for less than a mortgage in Irvine. Any buyers lining up?

    • February 6, 2016 at 7:17 am

      Thanks for not disappointing me Jeff. And the city now has three plurality districts when he was calling for two majority districts. Let me know when you’re going to light the torches up for Tita Smith’s anti-abortion ballot measure that she’s joining Tait on. I won’t hold my breath

    • Pinky
      February 6, 2016 at 10:33 am

      The guy supporting Bao Nguyen for Congress is lecturing on Political Tone-deafness? That’s funny.

    • Matthew Cunningham
      February 6, 2016 at 5:09 pm

      Jeff: a series of public hearings before an appointed advisory panel of retired judged is not the democratic process. There’s no voting by the people. Progressive groups like OCCORD love these sort of strung out public hearings because they favor groups like theirs that are proficient at turning out bodies to speak from the same talking points and create the illusion that “the community” supports the political position of the political organizers.

      Jordan Brandman and the rest of the council have the strongest claim to speak for the people of Anaheim because they’ve actually been elected by the people of Anaheim.

  5. February 6, 2016 at 1:10 pm

    Another fact that stays true: Jordan’s proposed two-majority-district map idea, even if that map WOULD have stayed 2-majority under this new census, STILL would have been terrible for latinos, locking them into a 2-5 minority for years.

    So no, no apologies to Jordan. In fact I believe I’ll kick a little more mud on him now. Get over here, Jordan!

    • Pinky
      February 6, 2016 at 3:09 pm

      Just drink and drive your way to him

  6. February 6, 2016 at 3:35 pm

    My two longer comments pretty much punctured the air out of this non-story. It signifies nothing, not even much sound and fury.

    • February 6, 2016 at 3:53 pm

      You think it did… You would be wrong

    • Matthew Cunningham
      February 6, 2016 at 8:18 pm

      Thank goodness Vern is around to pat himself on the back.

  7. February 6, 2016 at 4:21 pm

    Can’t really add any more. You’ve got nothing. I will try in different words one more time, but I won’t waste my time coming back.

    Apparently the district that was previously 50% is now. You believe that shows Jordan is right about two radical things he tried to do, and is owed an apology. But no, it doesn’t vindicate either radical thing that he tried to do.

    The first thing he tried was to postpone the most Latino district to 2018, a non-presidential year, a slap in the face of the latinos who fought for this reform, and probably motivated by his fear of Dr Moreno. None of that looks any different or better when the 50% latino district becomes 49%. It just doesn’t change a thing there.

    And you seem to think that this development strengthens his argument for finding a 2-latino-majority map. It does nothing of the sort. The fact still remains that any 2-latino-majority map he coulda found or devised would have still ghettoized latinos into small minorities in the other four districts. This blip on the census data doesn’t change that either.

    That’s as clearly as I can explain it to you, the fact that you got nothing. But like a dog who’s dug up an old bone, you will cling to it, chew and drool on it, and show it off to your few friends. My work here is done. I say good day, sir.

    • February 6, 2016 at 4:22 pm

      (Correction: Apparently the district that was previously 50% is 49% now. )

      • February 6, 2016 at 7:57 pm

        It lost 1.7%. So in your mind three plurality districts is better than two majority ones? So between your math logic and Greg’s inability to read candidate financial forms, I’m not sure what to think about you two.

        • Greg Diamond
          February 8, 2016 at 1:35 pm

          It didn’t lose 1.7%. The demographer identified an error (seemingly his own) from last spring that has screwed up all of the maps since then. That was only identified now.

          You know where you can read about it.

        • Commenting Gnome
          February 8, 2016 at 6:29 pm

          Three plurality districts actually is better than two majority Dan. Although I don’t think Vern and Greg have figured out or could answer why it is better.

          • February 8, 2016 at 8:23 pm

            Jeez dude, we’ve both been saying that for months. It’s pretty simple. Only Dan is too dumb to see it. But go ahead, carve yourself a little niche where you agree with Vern and Greg but feel superior to them. Have fun in there!

            • Dan Chmielewski
              February 8, 2016 at 8:31 pm

              Only if three Latino candidates win

          • Greg Diamond
            February 8, 2016 at 11:28 pm

            What a curious thing to say! Do the words “because it doesn’t limit Latinos to being competitive in only 2 of the 6 districts” ring a bell? I’ve been saying that, in print, for many months. A 49.1% district is not much less than a 50.1%; it’s the margin in the third-best district that matters. I’ll bet that you could Google “third-best” and “Anaheim” and “districting” and learn something.

            • February 9, 2016 at 8:03 am

              I bet you could learn something too. If you post a comment at 11:28 PM, I’m likely snoozing, so to suggest I’ve deleted your comment when I’ just getting to it this morning is dishonest. Try not to get lost in thought – its unfamiliar territory for you.

              And its not like you don’t delete comments at the drop of a hat.

              • Greg Diamond
                February 9, 2016 at 12:29 pm

                And here’s something for you to learn: when I’m on your site, or on Matt’s, I can see whether my comments have been published, or are still on moderation, or have disappeared.

                As I clearly mentioned in the site (that you say isn’t worth your time to read), the one I mentioned having been deleted NOT the one just above. It was the one that said this:

                “It didn’t lose 1.7%. The demographer identified an error (seemingly his own) from last spring that has screwed up all of the maps since then. That was only identified now.”

                It no longer appears on my screen as published or as being in moderation. That means that it was deleted. Read “the site that you don’t read,” again and with more care, and you’ll see what I was saying.

                When I delete comments, almost all are attacks from anonymous posters whose names I don’t know (and who generally use fake email addresses), making it impossible for the blog to shift liability for defamation to them.

                It’s a wise practice; it’s notable that you generally don’t do this. (Unless, of course, you know the identities of people whose identities you profess not to know.) But, it’s your litter box to play in, so you can keep it exactly as clean as you like it.

                • February 12, 2016 at 8:16 am

                  “When I delete comments, almost all are attacks from anonymous posters whose names I don’t know…”

                  Let’s look at this exchange (sent to me via email this morning) that appeared on the OJ blog:

                  Ironic
                  Posted February 11, 2016 at 10:25 PM

                  How ironic to quote Tyson and then choose not to believe the demographer. You were wrong. He explained why. Own up to your mistakes.

                  Greg Diamond
                  Posted February 12, 2016 at 12:10 AM

                  You’re an idiot, which is why you hide your identity so that you can be an idiot without consequences. You presume that he is on the side of science and I am not. That’s an unwarranted — and also in this case WRONG — assumption. What Science actually demands, given a well-established record, is an attempt to use that record to reanalyze and examine the discrepant results. I tried to do that quickly before the meeting; now I have the luxury to do it slowly, and as time permits — so long as I finish at least a couple of months before the November election.

                  I was raring to go to rebut his remarks, but of course that was procedurally impossible (unless they decided to make an exception, which Kris Murray clearly would object to after having gotten the chance to put on her show.

                  One thing about which I’m VERY confident is the main thrust of my argument, which is that the change in the census figures were NOT what caused District 3 to drop below 50%. I know this for reasons that are extrinsic to the data set itself, but the data set will cough up the rest of the truth in time.

                  If anyone who actually has a name and a reputation to lose for being wrong wants to argue with me on this, they’re welcome to pipe up and do so here. But I’m not going to argue with shady political operatives who can lie and attack without consequences. Find another identity, if you must; this one is banned..

                  Let’s look at the comment posted again; “How ironic to quote Tyson and then choose not to believe the demographer. You were wrong. He explained why. Own up to your mistakes.”

                  Just how is this an attack? Bitch all you want about a comment being deleted; you act like a child who didn’t get his way. Someone points out you made a mistake which was painstakingly explained by someone who knows more about demographics than you do and you ban the commenter? Thanks for the reminder that you can dish it out but clearly don’t have the stones to take it.

              • February 9, 2016 at 6:08 pm

                Crying in your beer because I deleted a comment of yours? Boo hoo.

            • February 9, 2016 at 6:10 pm

              It was 50.8, not 50.1. I bet you could Google “DPOC party official removed from leadership position” and learn something too. From attending the pre-convention caucus, I learned just how despised you are in the party

  8. TJ
    February 6, 2016 at 10:00 pm

    This is such a non story. Jordan clearly hates Jose Moreno and know he would lose in a heads up race….He tried to pull a fast one along with his cohorts (all bought and paid for by Disney) and to his surprise, they got their ass handed to them. Look, the people voted for districts by an overwhelming majority, the council used a lottery system to select judges (four out of five were appointed to the bench by a Republican Governor) and after many options were submitted they voted unanimously that the Reyes map was the best option for Anaheim. The move to scrap the map was very stupid because it ignited the community against these phony puppets. Their days are numbered and we look forward to electing a council that represents the people… It would be fine if they are all white Republican men like Tait and Vanderbilt. It’s not about getting getting council members of any particular race or gender…It’s about getting rid of the influence of big corporate donors who have made millions on their investments on Kring, Murray and Jordan.

  9. February 7, 2016 at 12:37 pm

    Matthew Cunningham is definitely opposed to the Voting Rights Act and finds it “racialist,” but he won’t say so because that’s un-PC to admit nowadays. He argued against the suit brought under that Act, that IT was “racialist,” and he’s currently arguing against the obvious remedies to that suit, that they are “racialist.” He purports to believe that there is no racism left in America, and no need for remedies that help one racial group overcome traditional barriers, so he definitely opposes the Voting Rights Act as “racialist.” If he didn’t that would be inconsistent, or – what’s that phrase he always uses? – “INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST”

    It makes sense that Matt would feel, or pretend to feel that way, since not only is he a fake conservative, but he’s also the paid apologist for a power structure that wants to keep the status quo as long as possible. But Dan?

    In Dan’s zeal to cover for both Jordan’s actions and and Matt’s words, he offers up a truly lame paraphrase of Dr. King. Martin was describing a dream he had of SOME DAY seeing a post-racial America. Maybe he thought it would happen by 2016. But he probably wasn’t counting on there being folks like Matt, Dan, and Jordan still around in 2016.

    BOOM! *drops mike*

    • February 7, 2016 at 1:54 pm

      Actually Vern, I truly believe in what Dr. King said about being judged by the content of one’s character than the color of one’s skin. And as it pertains to elections, people who don’t vote get the government they deserve. Democrats need to be better about voting in off-year elections and special elections in general. Latino voters need to come out and vote in elections other than presidential year Novembers. If Trump is the Republican nominee and Hillary puts Castro on as VP, it could be a historic turnout of Latino voters. But what about midterms in 2014 and 2018? Latino voters didn’t show up then. Will they in 2 years? Tell me Vern? And as far as intellectual dishonesty goes, you’d be an expert there

      • Commenting Gnome
        February 7, 2016 at 2:03 pm

        Not a lot of Democrats in general turned out for the 2014 mid term election. What are you doing to increase turnout among white Democrats who stayed home? Don’t just put the blame all on Latino voters.

        • February 7, 2016 at 2:29 pm

          And I said that. Re-read the third sentence.

        • February 7, 2016 at 2:32 pm

          All us Democrats wish that latinos and other democrats would come out and vote more often. But the only reason Dan keeps beating on that drum now is that he thinks it excuses, or at least distracts from, Jordan’s attempts at disfranchisement. Dan is probably doing his best here, polishing away…

        • February 8, 2016 at 11:54 am

          I’m not; I’ve said before Democrats need to be better about voting in mid-terms and special elections.

    • February 7, 2016 at 2:32 pm

      ooo, just re-read your opening line here Vern. You’re a mind reader? It’s a little early to be drinking don’t you think?

      • February 7, 2016 at 2:36 pm

        Read better dimwit. The sentences following that assertion are my basis for that assertion.

        And how many years since you or anyone saw me drink, either? You got nothing, chump. In fact fo to the dictionary, look up “got nothing,” and you may be surprised and dismayed to see a picture of your smirking PR face.

        • February 7, 2016 at 3:04 pm

          It’s been years since I’ve seen your face in dirty Ill-fitting flea market/thrift shop clothes. Got nothing? Get a clue.

          Time for the game. Hope you’re watching somewhere where you can get free beer

          • February 7, 2016 at 3:11 pm

            Dan Chmielewski has nothing.

            • Pinky
              February 7, 2016 at 7:31 pm

              Enjoy your rented room.

    • Matthew Cunningham
      February 8, 2016 at 8:20 am

      “Matthew Cunningham is definitely opposed to the Voting Rights Act and finds it “racialist,” but he won’t say so because that’s un-PC to admit nowadays.”

      Vern, that isn’t true. You are lying.

      Sadly, it isn’t surprising that when the truth is not on your side, you resort to lying to make a point – and even worse, you lie in order to make a personal attack. This is a pattern with you.

      • February 8, 2016 at 11:05 am

        Sorry, Matt, I nailed you. I read your propaganda against districting for two years. And your real problem is with the CVRA, which enables and encourages electoral reforms that you find (or pretend to find) “racialist.”

        Sorry if you find it uncool to admit, but you know it’s true – your problem is with the CVRA.

        • Matthew Cunningham
          February 8, 2016 at 4:44 pm

          Vern – hey now! Now you’re actually being precise and specific! I thought you were accusing me of being against the federal Voting Rights Act, and I noted specifically in an earlier comment that I was absolutely not opposed to the US Voting Rights Act. Nonetheless, you rambled on with your imagined gotcha.

          True, I do not support the CVRA. It’s a litigation racket that was drafted by liberal trial attorney Robert Rubin, who conveniently has made a fortune using it to sue school districts and cities up and down the state. You see, Vern, I’m one of those people who still believes in color-blind government. CVRA codifies the progressive belief that our government ought to differentiate us and treat us differently BECAUSE of our race.

          So, of course you support it.

  10. Greg Diamond
    February 7, 2016 at 3:16 pm

    I’m posting at about 3:15 p.m. on Sunday. Just wanted to let everyone know that this situation is about to become hilarious – at least from my and Vern’s perspective.

    • bill johnson
      February 8, 2016 at 10:25 am

      I know this website is trying to spin the very small change in census numbers in such a way that saves face for Jordan. But it is clear that Jordan and his alliance did what they did to protect themselves, not out of concern for the Latino voter.

      After fighting district elections in every way possible, it was the lawsuit that finally paved the way for an election (one which I’m sure they thought would defeat the idea) in which an overwhelming majority of voters said give us the damn districts.

      Then came the drawing up process. Many options were presented to 5 retired judges who unanimously selected the Reyes map.

      Jordan hated this one from the beginning, because it would pit him against Jose Moreno in the neighborhood that they live in and he knows he can’t win that race. At first it didn’t matter because he was going to run for congress, but when that option fell apart he started making his next move.

      First try…set the election of the council member from district three back as long as possible, giving him as much time as possible to plot his next move.

      This was particularity offensive because the basis when they said “hey don’t worry Vanderbilt lives there and his third cousin is from Peru so hey those people will have some representation”

      That didn’t work, so they tried the nullify the map completely and draw some new lines. And that also backfired because people are watching now and the old tricks don’t work.

      Nice try on this idea that 1.7% shift vindicates Jordan and his friends for their nasty behavior. It does not.

      • February 8, 2016 at 3:08 pm

        Moreno did win that district in 2014, barely beating Gail Eastman and Kris Murray. Jordan won it easily in 2012. At the end of the day, voters need to ascertain which candidate will be able to best get things done. But as far as Party pure Democrats go, Jordan backed Murray and Eastman while Moreno was all in for Tait. Judge Brandman on his voting record on the council, which is mostly opposing a conservative Republican mayor, as well as Moreno’s record on the school board.

        • Pinky
          February 8, 2016 at 4:05 pm

          Second worst performing school district in the county

      • Commenting Gnome
        February 8, 2016 at 6:25 pm

        Agree with almost everything you said, except on the Vanderbilt part. His connection to Latin America is a lot closer than a third cousin.

  11. February 8, 2016 at 1:53 pm

    I know no “blog-whoring” here – by which Dan means linking to something on your own blog – but you-all might wanna check out the Orange Juice today. Greg has made quick work of this little hiccup, and District 3 does indeed have a Latino majority CVAP.

    Oh did I write “made quick work of?” I’m sorry, I take it back, Greg doesn’t do that. He tortured the poor thing to death. But it is dead now, for sure. Up on a scaffolding.

  12. February 8, 2016 at 3:02 pm

    I have far better things to do with my day than read anything Greg has to offer. You can do us a public service and give him tips on how to dress…..tuck in the front of the shirt before twisting it. No one wants to see his hairy belly. Certainly no one at DPOC. Oh and sandals in January….really? Must we be subjected to his toes?

    • Pinky
      February 9, 2016 at 12:21 pm

      Greg grew up in HB. You can tell from his six pack abs and surfer body

  13. Randy Roddy
    February 9, 2016 at 11:40 am

    What sort of idiot would bother to cry croc tears over three strong plurality districts versus two majority ones?

    Seriously. What sort?

    • February 9, 2016 at 3:07 pm

      You forgot to use your fake email address for this comment and used your real one “Randy.” Thanks, coward

    • February 10, 2016 at 12:14 pm

      Hi Dave Zenger! You’re not banned here so why hide?

  14. Dan Chmielewski
    February 9, 2016 at 11:16 pm

    If you want great political theater, please check out the video for the Anaheim City Council meeting where the city’s demographer explains to OJ blogger Greg Diamond why his analysis on the OJ blog is flawed.

    First, an inability to read campaign finance reports and now a flaw in population calculations. This is the guy who brags about showing his work? Broadcasting mistakes is more like it

  15. Investor
    February 10, 2016 at 8:21 am

    I prefferred watching Diamond, an under-employed Brea apartment renter, chime in on property investment. What a windbag.

    • February 10, 2016 at 12:14 pm

      If you watch the video of last night’s meeting, Dr. Diamond comes on around 4:29 and makes a case to want to cross-examine the demographer. Under questioning from Kris Murray, the demographer very politely tells Diamond his analysis was wrong and why. We’re told Diamond was seething at the end of the meeting. So between Diamond’s flawed analysis of the mapping and his inability to read candidate financial forms, “showing your work” in the case is proving an inability to process information.

      I think he’s just mad because none of this many plans were approved.

      • Fake Name No Shame
        February 10, 2016 at 7:30 pm

        So, now we see Paul Lucas AKA Henry Lipton, David Zenger AKA Randy Roddy, Ryan Catnor AKA Reality Is..

        Have all chosen to revert back to the anonymous attacks that Greg claims to hate……..

        Remember, before David Vasquez was “outed” as being close to a DPOC member ( something he openly admitted early on, but Diamond ignored) how Greg got all ninth grade and “DEMANDED” takedown, tossed around more hollow, idle, weak legal threats. I wonder what the chickenhawks (Diamond and Nelson) will say now that thier soldiers are “cowards”.

        Greg is a wussy.

  16. Ten Thousand Miles Up
    February 12, 2016 at 4:21 pm

    Sorry for getting here late. I would like to put in my two cents. I have watched people hide behind the cloak of ‘Democrat’ as a way to justify outrageous behavior.

    As a Democrat I always think we should stand up for the little guy, the working men and women.

    In the Federalist papers James Madison wrote of the problem of faction or interests that subvert the good of the people.

    It seems that self interest and overarching vanity
    has skewed several of the players in this drama to try and subvert doing the right thing for the people of Anaheim.

    I am glad the all too cozy lobbyist, moneyed interests were defeated by democratic action.

    Three cheers for the people of Anaheim!
    Democracy worked this time.

    Also Dan, you shouldn’t make fun of Jeff and others who don’t live in Anaheim for standing up for the People’s map. It reminds me of Southern segregationists complaining about “outside agitators” during the Civil Rights movement.

    • February 12, 2016 at 6:30 pm

      I watched Jeff say his leaving his home in Anaheim wasn’t his choice. It was entirely his choice.

Comments are closed.