The extreme lefts hate coupled with poor performance on immigration, the economy of most (not many people are making money in the stock market other than the top 20 or 30% of the population) and constant blaming of the orange man for every problem that exists and taking no ownership motivated more people to vote for Trump.

An even bigger problem is now we have four data points showing the average number of voters and highlights 2020 as an anomaly. That’s very difficult to explain.

To me its that the democratic party has a democracy problem. There hasn't been a primary that was competitive for years, because the structure of the primaries is built to prevent it. We can even see it here locally. The democratic party has become more of a patronage system than an agent of democracy.

Not a question regarding Trump, but is it still a democracy if the people elect a dictator in a "free and fair election"?

I'll have to read up sometime regarding how everyone's favorite dictator from about 90 years ago got into power.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXdtafGdIVM

Jimmy Kimmel also said:

"It was a terrible night for women, for children, for the hundreds of thousands of hard working immigrants who make this country go, for health care, for our climate, for science, for journalism, for justice, for free speech. It was a terrible night for poor people, for the middle class, for seniors who rely on Social Security"

He ended with

"And it was a terrible night for everyone who voted against him. And guess what? It was a bad night for everyone who voted for him too. You just don’t realize it yet.”

This is what is pushing more and more "normal" people out of the Democratic party. Nobody likes it when someone who is smug and condescending tells them over and over again "I'm richer and smarter than you and you need to listen to me little poor dumb poor person and vote the way I want you to vote".

In the last week before the election people got nonstop "this time Trump will lock up woman and minorities" (when he didn’t lock them up last time and couldn't even lock Hillary up or build a wall) and you need to trust the science (just what our scientists who are paid by the drug companies and food companies to say not what any other scientists say).

Finally tons of people were just sick and tired of the party that has been trying to ACTUALLY lock up their political opponents with BS nonstop “lawfare” and working overtime to ban free speech telling us the other guy is a fascist (he didn't lock people up last time but you need to trust us that he will do it this time like you trusted us to say that "masks work to stop the spread")...

Masks were about as effective as a chain-link fence in stopping a mosquito.

Leftists liberals tried every trick in the book labeling non-Democrats liberals immoral, Nazi loving, violent, sexist, bigots,homophobes, lying, cheating, stealing, lowlifes, and “garbage”. And the people of Davis gladly applied it with their noses stuck high up in the air, slashed people’s tires, egged cars, tried to get people fired, called in antifa, violated free speech at the library, harassed people with rude delusional texts.

Davis is for everyone, except if you cis Christian white fe/male conservative. As someone said; we may forgive, but will never forget you.

Maybe now Davi’s can be for everyone.

Time for change says:

> Maybe now Davis can be for everyone.

Sometimes I feel like a light skin black guy at a Klan event when I am at events in Davis with my wife since they think we are "one of them" (people that like people of all races and genders as long as they are well educated and agree with us) since they know my wife has multiple Ivy Leage degrees and we are not religious. While religion is not part of my life I love my parents that got to church every Sunday and my wife's cousins that don't drive on the Sabbath. I've met some actual racist guys but none of then seem to have as much hatred as the people in Davis with "Davis is for everyone" signs have toward Trump, Pro Life Catholics and Zionist Jews. I don't expect to ever see a "Davis is for everyone including Trump voters" sign in Davis ever...

Davis is definitely "different" than other communities. In my opinion, Davis is "better" (overall).

"Folsom’s rejection of a sales tax measure is a stunning rebuke of its leadership elite"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/folsom-s-rejection-of-a-sales-tax-measure-is-a-stunning-rebuke-of-its-leadership-elite-opinion/ar-AA1tJYWo?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=3dd4abe95c7344e3be2d84d6e1f074ba&ei=15

Democrats are now the party of rich white east coast liberals, illegal immigrants and the men who play in women's sports.

Republicans are now perceived as the party of the working class people.

Ron Glick (today's Vanguard):

November 19, 2024 at 1:59 pm
"Actually I can speak anecdotally of my friend who left Davis to buy a single family home in Spring Lake, Taking her little ADA’s and parcel tax money out of DJUSD."

Actually, neither of those claims are true - especially the part regarding parcel taxes. Those stay with the property, not the individual.

And if your friend continues to send their kids to Davis schools (rather than Woodland - where they now belong), DJUSD will also not lose the ADA. Also, if the "replacements" have school-age kids, the net result might be MORE ADA for DJUSD. (Which really shouldn't be the goal in the first place.)

You know what ACTUALLY is the goal? To right-size DJUSD's system.

I have lots more to say about the so-called "housing crisis" (especially as it relates to DJUSD's oversized system), but I get tired of repeating myself.

Seems like David focuses exclusively on housing, now. While also ignoring the massive losses that we just witnessed regarding the types of candidates and issues he supports (at both the state and national levels).

But it is kind of amusing to see the "pro-housing" advocates at odds with each other, on the Vanguard.

I've previously pointed out some of the following, but if David is going to keep repeating his claims, I feel compelled to periodically respond.

David is still not putting forth honest arguments (e.g., claiming that he supports Measure J, while simultaneously trying to instill fear in others that it will be overturned.)

There is no evidence at all that the state looks outside of city boundaries in regard to RHNA. If it did, every urban limit line throughout the state would be in danger. As would rural zoning, farm/conservation easements, the state's own Williamson act, . . .

They're not even focusing on Healdsburg's measure, so far. Voters rejected this change, which applied to land WITHIN city limits, I believe.

https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/Main%20County%20Site/Administrative%20Support%20%26%20Fiscal%20Services/CRA-ROV/Registrar%20of%20Voters/Documents/Elections/2024/11-05-2024/SoCo_Nov2024GenElec_07_MeasO_CityHealdsburg.pdf

Petaluma also "renewed" its urban limit line.

https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/yes-on-measure-y-to-renew-petalumas-urban-growth-boundary/

It seems like no matter how many times facts are pointed out, David (and some of those on the council) are going to continue spreading "misinformation". I'll stop short of calling it "disinformation", since it's really just his (claimed) opinion.

The state might come in and force zoning changes WITHIN city limits (if the city doesn't change them first), but those types of changes generally don't pencil-out in the first place - as David has already acknowledged. THAT's the real quandary that the state created for itself - they may have power to interfere with planning within city limits, but that doesn't mean that any of the changes would pencil-out. As a result, it's not likely that the state's housing targets are going to be met in most (if any) cities across the state.

Bottom line is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the state has the authority to force cities to grow outside of their boundaries. NONE of the recently-passed laws even mention it. The state's efforts are supposedly focused on density, not sprawl.

Also, none of the current sprawling proposals directly address future RHNA targets in the first place. It could be that voters would approve one of these proposals, only to have the state come in later and "change" what was approved (since it would then be within city limits).

Another issue is whether or not previously-approved (but unbuilt) sites can be "re-used" regarding future RHNA targets. Again, this is a statewide issue, not a Davis issue.

It seems likely that Newsom and Bonta will increasingly focus on the "bad man" in the White House, more than anything else.

The entire U.S. is not even having enough children to reach replacement levels, anymore. Turns out that the younger generations have finally figured out that it doesn't "pay" to have kids, and is also environmentally unsustainable beyond replacement levels.

Also, I understand that even UCD has not been expanding the number of employees it has - or if it has at all - the increase has not been significant.

In the "not news" department:

"The California Teachers Association also opposes school closures in nearly all cases."

https://calmatters.org/education/k-12-education/2024/11/school-closures/

David also makes this claim:

Unlike previous times, the city has to actually build the units, they can’t simply lay the same places on the map time after time and say they’ve met their allotment.

Notice how David provides no evidence for this claim? Also, the document below (from 2022) refutes David's claim (pg. 3 of 9). In fact, unbuilt sites CAN be re-used for future housing elements. (And it's highly likely that ALL cities will do so.)

https://marin.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=marin_0343e34272ebf98b0f3d9127f7cdae01.pdf

By the way, what happened with the plan to rezone church sites? And what difference does it make if churches resist such plans? (It's not as if anyone can actually force them to build anything - just like any other property owner.) But do they get special treatment regarding rezoning? (And aren't some of these churches/religious organizations among the loudest voices regarding a so-called housing crisis?)