Poll: Which election result are you most disappointed about? / LJWorld.com

Previous poll Next poll

Response		Percent	Votes
Jenkins defeats Boyda		45%	470
Obama defeats McCain		25%	264
Lawrence sales tax questions are approved		11%	121
Roberts defeats Slattery		10%	112
Francisco defeats Morgan		3%	38
Holland defeats Pine		2%	27
Total	1032

Delicious
Digg
Tumblr
Wordpress
Reddit
Copy and paste the link:

LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

patterte (anonymous) says…

Prop 8 is passing in California. I am stunned at the stupidity. THAT is what I am most disappointed with.
November 4, 2008 at 11:16 p.m.
Boeing (anonymous) says…

Me too! I am California born and raised and while I am not surprised that my home San Bernardino voted Yes, I am a bit shocked that LA and San Diego counties did...
November 4, 2008 at 11:31 p.m.
frazzled (anonymous) says…

I am not proud of my home state of California right now.On the other hand, consider this. In 1998, Prop 22 (an initiative identical to Prop 8) got 60% of the vote. Prop 8, on the other hand, is getting around 51-52%. We are making progress.
November 5, 2008 at 9:21 a.m.
peach_plum_pear (anonymous) says…

I'm sad for Al Franken today. Only 800 votes away from the senate. I'm also very sad about prop. 8. However, now that Obama is president and will surely be appointing some new justices, maybe prop 8 will go to a revamped supreme court and be struck down for good.
November 5, 2008 at 10:26 a.m.
denak (anonymous) says…

I am disappointed that Prop 8 passed. It was just a waste of time but it does lay the groundwork for this issue to ultimately be addressed in the Supreme Court where I think the SCOTUS will find in favor of marriage rights for homosexuals.The other issue that disappointed me terriably was the measure in Arkansas that will only allow married couples to be foster and adoptive parents. This is a terrible blow for for foster children.The voters in Arkansas put a religious agenda before what is in the best interest of these children.As a foster parent, I know for a fact that there are children who will never be able to live in a traditional two parent family. They are either terrified of or extremely angry towards one gender due to the abuse they have suffered.Forcing these children to live in a two parent family is not only cruel to the child but to the foster/adoptive parents.These childre are going to end up in group homes. Group homes are ok, they serve a purpose but they don't provide the same home environment that a regular foster home does. Single people can and do provide good stable loving foster homes for these children. And it is a shame that heterosexual single people won't be able to provide a home for these kids because religious zealots were so scared that a gay person might sneak in under the radar, that they just out right banned anyone who isn't married.And that in a nutshell is why they passed this measure. It had nothing to do with the children. It was a way to stick it to gay people.It was grossly unfair to everyone involved, whether they were single, straight or otherwise. But it is especially unfair to the children of Arkansas.Dena
November 5, 2008 at 4:57 p.m.
coneflower (anonymous) says…

I am disappointed that Nancy Boyda lost to a smear campaign. Boyda has served our interests well in the House and it is my fervent hope that she will run again in 2 years.
November 5, 2008 at 8:07 p.m.
gccs14r (anonymous) says…

I don't think the SCOTUS will rule in favor of gay marriage per se, but rather will rule that the 14th Amendment prohibits banning it. Either consenting adults may marry or they may not. There cannot be two sets of rules. BTW, whose bright idea was it to allow a simple majority to ratify a constitutional amendment? At the Federal level, it takes a 3/5 majority.
November 5, 2008 at 8:24 p.m.
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (anonymous) says…

Dena: "As a foster parent, I know for a fact that there are children who will never be able to live in a traditional two parent family. They are either terrified of or extremely angry towards one gender due to the abuse they have suffered. Forcing these children to live in a two parent family is not only cruel to the child but to the foster/adoptive parents." ( And I thought I was beyond the pale. )"As a foster parent," I would have expected a little more confidence in the resiliency of individuals, especially the young. If, for whatever reason, a youngster is "terrified or extremely angry towards one gender," then the prescription, it would seem, would be the resolution of that terror or anger, *fostered* via empathetic and caring relationships with members of the *compromised* gender.So, what are you saying, Dena? That separatism is the solution to having had unpleasant experiences with members of a particular gender?( Now, I understand the basis of your *homophilia*. )What is shortsighted and "cruel" is denying the victims of gender-based abuse an opportunity to transcend their abusive experiences so that they might reclaim the broader intergender context which gave them expression in the first place and which would afford them better understanding and appreciation of themselves... and of those *selves* beyond themselves.
November 5, 2008 at 8:43 p.m.
denak (anonymous) says…

TRA,It is cruel to the child and to the foster/adoptive parents to force a child who is not ready to live in an environment that they can not handle emotionally.It is much better for the child to live in a single parent foster home and get the skills via therapy that they need so that they can one day, hopefully, learn to live with and relate to that specific gender.It is not shortsighted to recognize that a child needs time to learn these skills, learn to trust and to learn to manage their anger and anxiety. If a child makes enough progress that the child can live in a two parent family, great. However, if the child is not able to, for whatever reason, then it is not in the child's best interest to force them into a situation that will hurt them emotionally even further.The goal of the state should be to do what is in the best interest of the child. Pandering to a religious agenda, at the detriment of the chid, is not in the child's best interest.DenaP.S. Just because a child is young does not mean that they have not suffered a great deal of abuse. If anything we need to be even more cognizant of the child's emotional well being because, unlike older children, they do not have the intellectual ability to understand what happened to them. Resiliancy is a good thing but not all children are resiliant. Most children need long term intensive therapy to get over what happened to them.
November 5, 2008 at 10:06 p.m.
mike_blur (Mike Blur) says…

I'm bummed Kathy Martin kept her chair on the State Board of Education.
November 5, 2008 at 10:31 p.m.