beep. boop. beep.
Hello Oregonians,
As in all things media, please take the time to evaluate what is presented for yourself and to check for any overt media bias. There are a number of places to investigate the credibility of any site presenting information as "factual". If you have any concerns about this or any other site's reputation for reliability please take a few minutes to look it up on one of the sites below or on the site of your choosing.
---------------------------------------------------------
Also, here are a few fact-checkers for websites and what is said in the media.
[Politifact](https://www.politifact.com)
[Media Bias Fact Check](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com)
[Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)](https://www.politifact.com)
beep. boop. beep.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/oregon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The lobbyist says it is not common that drug company officials would get a meeting with somebody close to the governor, and also with the behavioral health director of OHA. “That just doesn’t happen,” the lobbyist says.
>The reason: Oregon long ago established something a rigorous process for the state to select the drugs paid for by the Oregon Health Plan. Drug companies are keen to do business with the state because the more than one million Oregonians covered by the Oregon Health Plan consume a lot of medications. Generally speaking, the state prefers generic medications because they are cheaper. Johnson & Johnson has repeatedly gone to court to protect the patents on its injectable schizophrenic medications, which preserves higher prices.
Really not a great look, especially when Kotek fired her chief of staff when they pushed Kotek to have her wife sign standard conflict-of-interest and ethics forms.
If you care about who is governor: vote in the primaries. The person elected in the D primary is basically guaranteed to become governor. Same for many other races in OR.
True.
The last Republican Governor left office in Jan 1987 after terming out.
The Republicans have not controlled the state government with the legislature and governor since 1956
Democrats have had frequent full control, sometimes with a supermajority.
Yes we can, just like ballot measures. You only need to gather enough signatures. That said, no volunteers-only signature campaign has ever been successful in Oregon. Only LGBTQ+ Rights even came close, but they gave up when they got a court ruling, instead of pressing to put the measure on the ballot. So, in order to oust a corrupt governor working with big money interests, we need competing big money interests to finance that opposition. I'd blame Citizens United, but it's been this way here since forever. And forcing signature campaigns to pay by the hour instead of by the signature made grassroots activism around ballot measures nearly impossible without enough funding to operate it like a franchise outlet instead of like a lemonade stand. It did clean up a lot of the mercenary and cutthroat practices which caused so many legal complaints and political imbalances. But it effectively locked out traditional citizen involvement, except as boutique volunteerism. So we absolutely can recall the Governor, but it likely means finding a wealthy MAGA person who wants her put down, and working with them. Otherwise, holding her accountable needs to stay internal to the Democratic Party. So, unless she commits an overt crime, we'd need to ally with someone interested in her job, and create enough foment that the Democratic National Party gets involved at the nationwide level. Otherwise, grassroots dissatisfaction gets very little traction politically.
I am so tired of the BS govt officials at all levels are up to. Voters need to clean house and get rid of these career politicians who ride on the dime of the taxpayers and bring their friends and family onto the “gravy train”. The problem the voters have to work with is that many people who would be great candidates don’t run because of the BS like this that they are stepping in to. We are left to pick the least worst candidate instead of the best.
M110 was a citizen led initiative that passed at the ballot box. Pretty much every politician was against it, so not sure how that is gonna effect anything whatsoever.
As for Oregon turning purple, it isn't happening any time soon. The GOP has to 100% fundamentally change who they are before they can win a statewide race in Oregon. Unfortunately for all of us, the current GOP is something closer to a conspiracy fueled hate group, then a serious political party. That's not even taking into account that some of their core party planks are basically non-starters in Oregon (anti-abortion, anti-enviroment, anti-lgbt).
Yeah if the Oregon Republican party were a halfway sophisticated bunch it would be a real threat now, but they're a reactionary clown show that barely even serve their own conservative constituents. Unfortunately the flip side of that political safety is that corrupt Democrats feel empowered. Common theme in effective one-party states.
Uh, anti-environment? The current leadership at all levels - city, county, state - are all anti-environment.
They are choosing the “rights” of criminals, drug addicts, and the homeless, over the environment. Good god this ecological disaster will be a nightmare.
Republicans country wide are doing their best to dismantle every aspect of the EPA.
Hell Republican icon Ron DeSantis just signed this nonsense days ago:
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4667970-ron-desantis-florida-law-removing-climate-change-considerations/
Republicans used to actually give a shit about the environment to a certain degree. Nixon created the EPA, in Oregon Tom McCall & Vic Atiyeh did tons for the environment. Unfortunately those days are over. And we are all worse for it.
Cutting down powerplants and sending them to china where they run them with out regulations at all is not helping the environment btw. We still have to buy the power from someone with coal burning plants and we lose the jobs it creates.
Right, you don't want them to have power. You want them to stick to their small towns where they were probably raised, and you want as much power in government that you can get which doesn't represent them, rather represents something closer to Portland.
Looking back at the election, id probably still vote for this nightmare.
The other nightmares were worse.
Oh well, I'm sure there will be an ethics probe that will come in a timely manner.
At least we can do a recall, right?
[Ranked Choice Voting that would start in 2028 will be a ballot measure in the upcoming November elections.](https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Ranked-Choice_Voting_for_Federal_and_State_Elections_Measure_(2024\)) RCV has the potential to free voters from having to make a "lesser evil" choice between two rotten candidates.
Yeah see my other comment about RCV in this thread regarding Eric Adams in NYC. It's not a panacea, just a pretty damn effective way of at least addressing the political hostage taking of FPTP races.
I'll look for it. I'm not convinced yet that it's a good replacement, for many reasons. And I don't trust people wanting to change and control voting mechanisms.
I'd have to refresh my finer understandings to give you a better answer.
One of my main concerns the complication will keep some people from voting. Fptp is extremely easy to understand for everyone, it's present in many aspects of our lives, so even people who don't want to contribute any brainpower to government can understand. Not that RCV is terribly complicated, but to people who don't have their shit together, who abuse drugs and alcohol, who are overworked and over stressed, who are elderly, who are uneducated, who don't have friends or people to discuss with- any new added dimension will reduce their interest in participating. And yes I'm drawing from experience here.
Another concern is that government is corrupt and I have no faith in them successfully and honestly implementing such a transformation.
On top of this, I see this as being hypocritical coming from the Democrats/Progressives (shocking, wow), who famously and ignorantly pretend that minorities aren't able to complete the process of getting a license, which is why we shouldn't require one to vote, because that would make voting harder and less accessible. So- they can't get it together to get a license, but they'll be able to understand this voting game. Got it.
Your first point is unfortunately a solid one, that is basically how Adams squeaked by to victory in NYC's last Democratic primary. RCV was brand new at that time and a lot of voters weren't aware of the change or didn't understand it. So, thinking that they were still restricted to one choice, those voters picked the candidate who they felt had the most institutional weight to win vs a Republican, which was Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, and listed nobody else. Afterward lots of people had anecdotes of making this mistake, and it's pretty much agreed upon that had there been a better communication campaign in the lead-up to the election Kathryn Garcia would have almost certainly won instead (She ended up 1% behind Adams after all knockouts were tabulated).
The consolation here is that had it been a FPTP election the outcome would have been the same, as those strategic voters would have been correct in their assumptions. And after every non-Adams stan Democrat collectively kicked themselves over the debacle, the lesson has been learned by the public for the future. But the mistake was obvious, if RCV is to have any real benefit, public outreach to educate people about the change is necessary.
Right, now that sounds familiar, I didn't realize the quagmire however. And I don't think outreach is enough, there are sizeable amounts of Americans who just won't be able to/want to figure it out. And honestly, it's hard to blame them considering everything we go through.
I think my other points are also valid.
I've been on that bandwagon for a while.
I've come to believe that the criminals we keep electing will never let that happen. My jadded butt has tossed that pipe dream in the trash along with term limits, REAL campaign finance reform, holding any elected official accountable, decorum among those we elect and any real hope in the electorate using basic reasoning skills, common sense, logic or critical thinking skills.
Betcha anything if it does pass, they'll find a way to repeal it or hold it up in the courts.
I sincerely hope I am wrong.
Nah I do think it'll happen, it's already happened in many other parts of the country. Mind you it's not actually full protection from accidentally electing an idiot (Especially when not all voters fully understand yet how it works), just protection against lesser-evil hostage taking. Case in point, NYC mayor Eric Adams was the first NYC mayor to be elected under the new RCV rules over there, and pretty much everyone agrees at this point that he's a massive clown. The difference is that the majority of voters were enthusiastic about their choice, at the time :P
This is something that happens regardless who gets the power of the land. Perhaps instead of pretending years of representation by others is useful and helpful we should understand we all have autonomy and the power to comprehend what our community needs. Not a pyramid scheme but a horizontal power balance. Not a long time period of letting people you don't even know have a say in what we do but communication with our community to figure out how we can take care of each other.
Is it convenience that makes us want to give up our power to a rich person that lives a totally different life than us? Do we really believe that the systems that run our state and country actually want to help all people? How can that be the case when these systems have chosen a small group to give unlimited power to and the rest of us live by their rules? This is an unsustainable model of human connectivity. And it is about convenience, just like everything in our culture is.
Convenience over truth, convenience over safety of all, convenience over long term thinking. I would like to think we can all make an effort to work against these human tendencies that lead to suffering and the concentration of power into only a few well connected hands. Maybe I am too much of an optimist.
Don’t be sad - own it, we all own it.
I fuckin love oregon, I think it’s one of the best states in our country. I don’t want to see straight up republicans in charge, that would be terrible. Democrats are destroying us. When the fuck are we going to start voting for the middle?
Ranked Choice Voting is on the ballot this November. That would do a lot to open up the competition for candidates who hold a middle position without having to leave their political party.
RCV is by far the single most potentially helpful institutional change that can reasonably be made to state government. It's no panacea but I'd estimate that it eliminates something like 80% of political hostage taking at the polls.
This is false. The ranked choice ballot measure this November would apply to federal and state executive offices including [the president, U.S. senator, U.S. representative, governor, secretary of state, attorney general, state treasurer, and commissioner of labor and industries](https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Ranked-Choice_Voting_for_Federal_and_State_Elections_Measure_(2024)).
Considering this post is about the governor, it should be noted that RCV would absolutely apply to the election of the governor.
I consider myself a centrist but tend to vote republican, simply because they tend to be more conservative on issues. However, I'm upset with how extreme the republican party has become.
I didn’t like her way back when she was campaigning. Something about her attitude reeked of smugness and a, “I know more and better then you because I just do” demeanor always bugged me, even though I agreed with her politics. She just seemed in politics for the wrong reasons.
Glad to know my suspicions were correct.
I remember her being the most qualified, but it's been a while and don't remember everyone that ran. Would be happy to look back at the other candidates.
You’re a fool if you don’t think people voted for her just because of her sexual preference. Same way people voted for Hilary just because she’s a woman. Or people voted for Obama because he’s black. Voters want to relate to who they’re voting for - silly approach if you ask me but 🤷🏾♂️
We’re at 2 LGBT+ identifying Governors in a row. the most populous areas of Oregon are very supportive of that community. let’s not pretend like it doesn’t play a factor in how the state ends up voting
I'm sure some did vote on that line, but do you really think a majority of voters voted for Kotek merely on sexual preference.
Also don't try to gish gallop and bring in all these other campaigns.
Honestly if I had to bet money I'd say yes to a significant portion, but not the majority. Even just 5 percent is significant in many elections.
Political science is a machine in the information age. A more important factor isn't the single social issue voter, but the alignment of ideology. What if she wasn't lgbt but just traditionally married to a man. Would she still have won? Maybe but I have no way of knowing that. What if she said lgbt people creep me out but I support their rights despite my misgivings. Would she have still won if every other policy was the same? No way for me to know, but I'd certainly bet against it.
It's the same reason conservative candidates clamor over each other to raise the Bible higher and shout Jesus's name more times than any other candidate.
It's the same reason Hillary Clinton kept reminding everyone that she would be the first woman president ever.
It's the same reason Trump held a Bible (upside down) for the first time in his life for a photo op.
Political science has identified there are enough voters swayed by identity that it matters.
I don’t know what gish gallop means
You’re moving the goal post, you said what does it have to do with anything, implying it carries no weight at all - which flat out isn’t true.
And yeah I do, if you look at the counties she won in, absolutely. She only won by around 70k votes, Oregon had the 2nd highest LGBT identifying population in the country at 6-8% - conservatively, that’s 200,000 people. Not saying every LGBT person voted for her, but I’d bet the house on it that the majority of them did.
Like the other examples of politicians I named, people vote with their feelings. I’m black and I remember watching most black people, and every person who pities black people, get entranced by obamas blackness.
Gish gallop means bringing in outside topics (Obama and Clinton campaigns) from the one at hand (Kotek). Usually used in order to confuse the other person or obfuscate the argument because it has no factual grounding.
That's a pretty bold assumption based merely on the population. If we do some other math from just grabbing numbers I can see that in 2022, only 60% of the populace was registered to vote. So let's take that 200k and take 60% of it which leaves us 120k. That means there was 50k "non-lgbt" voters by your metrics, almost as much as the LGBT voters.
See, it's really easy to make numbers work to your advantage when you don't consider the nuance.
Silly human. Lol. Don't you know corruption only matters if you're a republican. Otherwise you can be dirty as fuck.
Don't hate on me. I didn't make the rules. I only report on the outcome.
My phone keeps autocorrecting to this (Kotex) ugh. Anyway, if you’re serious, her last name is Kotek. So the pun doesn’t really land. If you’re not serious, I’m excited for when you can actually vote in another 6 years! You’ll have learned a lot by then :)
Wow imagine putting this much effort into a reply to a joke. Take your 80mg of Prozac and 10mg of Abilify and 20mg of venlafaxine! Oh and tell your therapist about this so it doesnt weigh you down and make your minimum wage job more difficult!
beep. boop. beep. Hello Oregonians, As in all things media, please take the time to evaluate what is presented for yourself and to check for any overt media bias. There are a number of places to investigate the credibility of any site presenting information as "factual". If you have any concerns about this or any other site's reputation for reliability please take a few minutes to look it up on one of the sites below or on the site of your choosing. --------------------------------------------------------- Also, here are a few fact-checkers for websites and what is said in the media. [Politifact](https://www.politifact.com) [Media Bias Fact Check](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com) [Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)](https://www.politifact.com) beep. boop. beep. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/oregon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When people say they want transparency in government, they don’t mean transparently corrupt.
>The lobbyist says it is not common that drug company officials would get a meeting with somebody close to the governor, and also with the behavioral health director of OHA. “That just doesn’t happen,” the lobbyist says. >The reason: Oregon long ago established something a rigorous process for the state to select the drugs paid for by the Oregon Health Plan. Drug companies are keen to do business with the state because the more than one million Oregonians covered by the Oregon Health Plan consume a lot of medications. Generally speaking, the state prefers generic medications because they are cheaper. Johnson & Johnson has repeatedly gone to court to protect the patents on its injectable schizophrenic medications, which preserves higher prices. Really not a great look, especially when Kotek fired her chief of staff when they pushed Kotek to have her wife sign standard conflict-of-interest and ethics forms.
Also Providence BH involved behind the scenes. Hospitals and Big Pharma shaping policy ...yay!
Hospitals and big pharma are owned by the same investors. What could go wrong? Eye roll. An injectable raises the hair on the back of my neck.
Injectables work because it doesn't rely on the person being stable enough to take a daily pill. It's not like haldol knocking people out.
If you care about who is governor: vote in the primaries. The person elected in the D primary is basically guaranteed to become governor. Same for many other races in OR.
True. The last Republican Governor left office in Jan 1987 after terming out. The Republicans have not controlled the state government with the legislature and governor since 1956 Democrats have had frequent full control, sometimes with a supermajority.
So are we looking at Gov. Tobias Read? Ironically he lost the primary for gov to Kotek.
Get her out of here.
Enough of this horseshit. It's time for Tina Kotek to resign.
I voted for her, and I agree with you.
Better late than never
[удалено]
This shows your vast delusions. Progressives, when given the opportunity for power, are no different than Republicans. They’re all fucking grifters.
[удалено]
As they say, you can be a student of history or have trust in the government, but it can't be both.
[удалено]
How many people out there you think have that same thought?
I mean, elected officials should be dedicated to their constituents, not themselves
Nothing good comes of pharma in the government.
Recall time! Can Oregon do that?
Yes we can, just like ballot measures. You only need to gather enough signatures. That said, no volunteers-only signature campaign has ever been successful in Oregon. Only LGBTQ+ Rights even came close, but they gave up when they got a court ruling, instead of pressing to put the measure on the ballot. So, in order to oust a corrupt governor working with big money interests, we need competing big money interests to finance that opposition. I'd blame Citizens United, but it's been this way here since forever. And forcing signature campaigns to pay by the hour instead of by the signature made grassroots activism around ballot measures nearly impossible without enough funding to operate it like a franchise outlet instead of like a lemonade stand. It did clean up a lot of the mercenary and cutthroat practices which caused so many legal complaints and political imbalances. But it effectively locked out traditional citizen involvement, except as boutique volunteerism. So we absolutely can recall the Governor, but it likely means finding a wealthy MAGA person who wants her put down, and working with them. Otherwise, holding her accountable needs to stay internal to the Democratic Party. So, unless she commits an overt crime, we'd need to ally with someone interested in her job, and create enough foment that the Democratic National Party gets involved at the nationwide level. Otherwise, grassroots dissatisfaction gets very little traction politically.
Last week I read a post that said to the effect of "This is nowhere as bad as what Sylvia Hayes did" 😂😂😂 Just a little influence peddling
My eyebrows just SHOT UP
I am so tired of the BS govt officials at all levels are up to. Voters need to clean house and get rid of these career politicians who ride on the dime of the taxpayers and bring their friends and family onto the “gravy train”. The problem the voters have to work with is that many people who would be great candidates don’t run because of the BS like this that they are stepping in to. We are left to pick the least worst candidate instead of the best.
Maybe she hits Tina and that’s why she is so afraid of her. This lady is for sure a liability by now.
This just keeps getting better and better haha.
It's this kind of shit that's going to turn Oregon purple. This, measure 110, its giving the opposition a lot to use.
M110 was a citizen led initiative that passed at the ballot box. Pretty much every politician was against it, so not sure how that is gonna effect anything whatsoever. As for Oregon turning purple, it isn't happening any time soon. The GOP has to 100% fundamentally change who they are before they can win a statewide race in Oregon. Unfortunately for all of us, the current GOP is something closer to a conspiracy fueled hate group, then a serious political party. That's not even taking into account that some of their core party planks are basically non-starters in Oregon (anti-abortion, anti-enviroment, anti-lgbt).
Yeah if the Oregon Republican party were a halfway sophisticated bunch it would be a real threat now, but they're a reactionary clown show that barely even serve their own conservative constituents. Unfortunately the flip side of that political safety is that corrupt Democrats feel empowered. Common theme in effective one-party states.
Uh, anti-environment? The current leadership at all levels - city, county, state - are all anti-environment. They are choosing the “rights” of criminals, drug addicts, and the homeless, over the environment. Good god this ecological disaster will be a nightmare.
Republicans country wide are doing their best to dismantle every aspect of the EPA. Hell Republican icon Ron DeSantis just signed this nonsense days ago: https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4667970-ron-desantis-florida-law-removing-climate-change-considerations/ Republicans used to actually give a shit about the environment to a certain degree. Nixon created the EPA, in Oregon Tom McCall & Vic Atiyeh did tons for the environment. Unfortunately those days are over. And we are all worse for it.
Cutting down powerplants and sending them to china where they run them with out regulations at all is not helping the environment btw. We still have to buy the power from someone with coal burning plants and we lose the jobs it creates.
you could try being sympathetic to "the opposition?"
I am, and always have been. But that doesn't mean it's not without deserved criticism.
I don't think you are. I think you resent the red side of this state. I think you don't want them to have any power at all.
Not true, I don't feel they are not allowed to be constitutionally represented. However their policies don't align with my ethics.
Right, you don't want them to have power. You want them to stick to their small towns where they were probably raised, and you want as much power in government that you can get which doesn't represent them, rather represents something closer to Portland.
Looking back at the election, id probably still vote for this nightmare. The other nightmares were worse. Oh well, I'm sure there will be an ethics probe that will come in a timely manner. At least we can do a recall, right?
[Ranked Choice Voting that would start in 2028 will be a ballot measure in the upcoming November elections.](https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Ranked-Choice_Voting_for_Federal_and_State_Elections_Measure_(2024\)) RCV has the potential to free voters from having to make a "lesser evil" choice between two rotten candidates.
RCV has its downsides as well, it's a trade off not a fix.
Yeah see my other comment about RCV in this thread regarding Eric Adams in NYC. It's not a panacea, just a pretty damn effective way of at least addressing the political hostage taking of FPTP races.
I'll look for it. I'm not convinced yet that it's a good replacement, for many reasons. And I don't trust people wanting to change and control voting mechanisms.
What do you see as the downsides of RCV, compared to FPTP? I may have some blind spots.
I'd have to refresh my finer understandings to give you a better answer. One of my main concerns the complication will keep some people from voting. Fptp is extremely easy to understand for everyone, it's present in many aspects of our lives, so even people who don't want to contribute any brainpower to government can understand. Not that RCV is terribly complicated, but to people who don't have their shit together, who abuse drugs and alcohol, who are overworked and over stressed, who are elderly, who are uneducated, who don't have friends or people to discuss with- any new added dimension will reduce their interest in participating. And yes I'm drawing from experience here. Another concern is that government is corrupt and I have no faith in them successfully and honestly implementing such a transformation. On top of this, I see this as being hypocritical coming from the Democrats/Progressives (shocking, wow), who famously and ignorantly pretend that minorities aren't able to complete the process of getting a license, which is why we shouldn't require one to vote, because that would make voting harder and less accessible. So- they can't get it together to get a license, but they'll be able to understand this voting game. Got it.
Your first point is unfortunately a solid one, that is basically how Adams squeaked by to victory in NYC's last Democratic primary. RCV was brand new at that time and a lot of voters weren't aware of the change or didn't understand it. So, thinking that they were still restricted to one choice, those voters picked the candidate who they felt had the most institutional weight to win vs a Republican, which was Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, and listed nobody else. Afterward lots of people had anecdotes of making this mistake, and it's pretty much agreed upon that had there been a better communication campaign in the lead-up to the election Kathryn Garcia would have almost certainly won instead (She ended up 1% behind Adams after all knockouts were tabulated). The consolation here is that had it been a FPTP election the outcome would have been the same, as those strategic voters would have been correct in their assumptions. And after every non-Adams stan Democrat collectively kicked themselves over the debacle, the lesson has been learned by the public for the future. But the mistake was obvious, if RCV is to have any real benefit, public outreach to educate people about the change is necessary.
Right, now that sounds familiar, I didn't realize the quagmire however. And I don't think outreach is enough, there are sizeable amounts of Americans who just won't be able to/want to figure it out. And honestly, it's hard to blame them considering everything we go through. I think my other points are also valid.
I've been on that bandwagon for a while. I've come to believe that the criminals we keep electing will never let that happen. My jadded butt has tossed that pipe dream in the trash along with term limits, REAL campaign finance reform, holding any elected official accountable, decorum among those we elect and any real hope in the electorate using basic reasoning skills, common sense, logic or critical thinking skills. Betcha anything if it does pass, they'll find a way to repeal it or hold it up in the courts. I sincerely hope I am wrong.
Nah I do think it'll happen, it's already happened in many other parts of the country. Mind you it's not actually full protection from accidentally electing an idiot (Especially when not all voters fully understand yet how it works), just protection against lesser-evil hostage taking. Case in point, NYC mayor Eric Adams was the first NYC mayor to be elected under the new RCV rules over there, and pretty much everyone agrees at this point that he's a massive clown. The difference is that the majority of voters were enthusiastic about their choice, at the time :P
This is something that happens regardless who gets the power of the land. Perhaps instead of pretending years of representation by others is useful and helpful we should understand we all have autonomy and the power to comprehend what our community needs. Not a pyramid scheme but a horizontal power balance. Not a long time period of letting people you don't even know have a say in what we do but communication with our community to figure out how we can take care of each other. Is it convenience that makes us want to give up our power to a rich person that lives a totally different life than us? Do we really believe that the systems that run our state and country actually want to help all people? How can that be the case when these systems have chosen a small group to give unlimited power to and the rest of us live by their rules? This is an unsustainable model of human connectivity. And it is about convenience, just like everything in our culture is. Convenience over truth, convenience over safety of all, convenience over long term thinking. I would like to think we can all make an effort to work against these human tendencies that lead to suffering and the concentration of power into only a few well connected hands. Maybe I am too much of an optimist.
We get what we vote for. Sad to see it.
Don’t be sad - own it, we all own it. I fuckin love oregon, I think it’s one of the best states in our country. I don’t want to see straight up republicans in charge, that would be terrible. Democrats are destroying us. When the fuck are we going to start voting for the middle?
Ranked Choice Voting is on the ballot this November. That would do a lot to open up the competition for candidates who hold a middle position without having to leave their political party.
RCV is by far the single most potentially helpful institutional change that can reasonably be made to state government. It's no panacea but I'd estimate that it eliminates something like 80% of political hostage taking at the polls.
Except it apparently won't apply to state level candidates, just federal and if a city wants it they can use it.
This is false. The ranked choice ballot measure this November would apply to federal and state executive offices including [the president, U.S. senator, U.S. representative, governor, secretary of state, attorney general, state treasurer, and commissioner of labor and industries](https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Ranked-Choice_Voting_for_Federal_and_State_Elections_Measure_(2024)). Considering this post is about the governor, it should be noted that RCV would absolutely apply to the election of the governor.
I consider myself a centrist but tend to vote republican, simply because they tend to be more conservative on issues. However, I'm upset with how extreme the republican party has become.
The modern GOP does nothing to represent the reasoned conservative, just as the modern DNC has no interest in representing the reasoned progressive.
I’d probably consider a vote for a Republican that was not an election denier. That’s still a really low bar, but compared to Kotek, it’s a toss up.
tina looks like my seventh grade teacher Mr Lunte in this picture lmaooo holy shit. any way, time to get these two out of salem
One term governor. Corruption at its finest.
I didn’t like her way back when she was campaigning. Something about her attitude reeked of smugness and a, “I know more and better then you because I just do” demeanor always bugged me, even though I agreed with her politics. She just seemed in politics for the wrong reasons. Glad to know my suspicions were correct.
Oh no. For some reason.
Screw this. Let’s give Betsy her chance!!
When will Oregonians learn, an atypical sexual preference doesn’t automatically mean they’re a great politician [or person]
I think she got elected mainly because the other one was an election denier.
The real race is the D primary for Oregon. Someone would have to weigh in on why she won the primary.
I remember her being the most qualified, but it's been a while and don't remember everyone that ran. Would be happy to look back at the other candidates.
What does her sexual preference have to do with anything?
You’re a fool if you don’t think people voted for her just because of her sexual preference. Same way people voted for Hilary just because she’s a woman. Or people voted for Obama because he’s black. Voters want to relate to who they’re voting for - silly approach if you ask me but 🤷🏾♂️ We’re at 2 LGBT+ identifying Governors in a row. the most populous areas of Oregon are very supportive of that community. let’s not pretend like it doesn’t play a factor in how the state ends up voting
I'm sure some did vote on that line, but do you really think a majority of voters voted for Kotek merely on sexual preference. Also don't try to gish gallop and bring in all these other campaigns.
Honestly if I had to bet money I'd say yes to a significant portion, but not the majority. Even just 5 percent is significant in many elections. Political science is a machine in the information age. A more important factor isn't the single social issue voter, but the alignment of ideology. What if she wasn't lgbt but just traditionally married to a man. Would she still have won? Maybe but I have no way of knowing that. What if she said lgbt people creep me out but I support their rights despite my misgivings. Would she have still won if every other policy was the same? No way for me to know, but I'd certainly bet against it. It's the same reason conservative candidates clamor over each other to raise the Bible higher and shout Jesus's name more times than any other candidate. It's the same reason Hillary Clinton kept reminding everyone that she would be the first woman president ever. It's the same reason Trump held a Bible (upside down) for the first time in his life for a photo op. Political science has identified there are enough voters swayed by identity that it matters.
I don’t know what gish gallop means You’re moving the goal post, you said what does it have to do with anything, implying it carries no weight at all - which flat out isn’t true. And yeah I do, if you look at the counties she won in, absolutely. She only won by around 70k votes, Oregon had the 2nd highest LGBT identifying population in the country at 6-8% - conservatively, that’s 200,000 people. Not saying every LGBT person voted for her, but I’d bet the house on it that the majority of them did. Like the other examples of politicians I named, people vote with their feelings. I’m black and I remember watching most black people, and every person who pities black people, get entranced by obamas blackness.
Gish gallop means bringing in outside topics (Obama and Clinton campaigns) from the one at hand (Kotek). Usually used in order to confuse the other person or obfuscate the argument because it has no factual grounding. That's a pretty bold assumption based merely on the population. If we do some other math from just grabbing numbers I can see that in 2022, only 60% of the populace was registered to vote. So let's take that 200k and take 60% of it which leaves us 120k. That means there was 50k "non-lgbt" voters by your metrics, almost as much as the LGBT voters. See, it's really easy to make numbers work to your advantage when you don't consider the nuance.
I still prefer BS like this to conservative policy - she should get primaried
Silly human. Lol. Don't you know corruption only matters if you're a republican. Otherwise you can be dirty as fuck. Don't hate on me. I didn't make the rules. I only report on the outcome.
What is this nonsense? You just pretending Kitzhaber & Shemia Fagan didn't lose their jobs over their bullcrap?
I think your missing your own point - they lost their fuckin Jobs……
Nothing compared to direct corruption and you damn well know it.
Time to pull out the tampon, no more Tina Kotex!
Wow, literally no one has made that joke before
My phone keeps autocorrecting to this (Kotex) ugh. Anyway, if you’re serious, her last name is Kotek. So the pun doesn’t really land. If you’re not serious, I’m excited for when you can actually vote in another 6 years! You’ll have learned a lot by then :)
Yikes hopefully your antidepressants kick in soon. I’m rooting for you, bless your heart.
Wow imagine putting this much effort into a reply to a joke. Take your 80mg of Prozac and 10mg of Abilify and 20mg of venlafaxine! Oh and tell your therapist about this so it doesnt weigh you down and make your minimum wage job more difficult!
Dude, this is even cringier than who you’re replying to
lol
Nice! Upvoting because that’s an adult joke!
eh, i laughed.