That's why we live here!

Danville may turn blue yet! Let's hope that Measure D passes. What would it say about us as a community if West Contra Costa School District can pass both a school bond and parcel tax with overwhelming majorities and the San Ramon Valley doesn't?

MMG: Have you ever walked around the schools in Richmond, and then walked around the schools in Danville?? I have, and Richmond schools look worse than a third world country, and in Danville we are putting up $100,000 megatron score boards on our football fields because otherwise "we do not support education". Moreover, in Danville, the overwhelming majority of voters are homeowners(that is also why more voters in Danville voted for Romney than Obama) while in Richmond less than 15% of voters are homeowners, so why note vote for a parcel tax when you as a renter do not have to pay for it. Please take your misguided liberal ideas and get a clue.

I for one am not sure being on the wrong side of the Romney/Obama election is a positive thing for Danville other than to represent the strong Mormon population here. For Emken, she is a right wing joke that has about as much probability of unseating a popular Senator as a ice cube on a hot griddle does of surviving.

It has nothing to do with a "strong Mormon population" in Danville... it has more to do with a high percentage of Danville residents who own/operate small-medium sized businesses that will get crushed in the coming years due to taxation (both State and Fed) and Obamacare. Those with business experience and acumen see what is coming under another 4 years of Obama and Moonbeam... If you are an employee of anything other than the largest companies in the area, you better start researching the State Exchanges when that new bureaucracy is created since, no small-medium business will be able to or want to afford providing health benefits. Then we all lose....

Hallelujah!!! That IS why we live here. And we're not Mormons!
Obama only has his legacy to be concerned about and let's just hope he learned something through this election process. We need change and Obama is going to have to provide it. With the obvious split in this country, that should be an eye-opener for him. Gotta just keep praying that "Obama 2016" doesn't fortell a true future.

I am loving the daily and increasing layoff reports! Dancing at the misery of NJ and NYC---golly---where is their lord Obama--savior of the universe?? And voter survived walking around Richmond schools? Should put his own kids in to see how long they would last!! Ha ha ha!!

The Kool-Aid drinkers and Brained Dead Democrats will someday realize "boy did we make a mistake"!

I for one am so glad my kids go to school with the "strong Mormon population" in Danville. They are some of the nicest, most well-behaved teenagers I have met. They do not drink, cannot date until they are 16 and are very committed to their faith and families. These are the role models I want to be around. We are active Catholics who go to mass every week, by the way. I think there are lots of Romney supporters in the area because there are still lots of pro-life Catholics, Mormons and conservatives. I would be interested to see if Obama carried in San Ramon because of the large immigrant population--especially in Dougherty Valley. They are not a pro-life voting block.

I don't know, Larry: Have you admitted YOU made a mistake voting in George W. Bush for 8 years?

That being said, this election was quite simple: you either believe in Supply-Side Economics (Reaganomics, Trickle-Down economics, etc, etc), or you don't. I for one KNOW, that the only way out of this mess is to cut our spending, AND raise taxes on the upper-end of our society. The polls on this question suggest that the vast majority (75%) of our electorate agree with this path. There was only one candidate promoting this direction, and it wasn't Governor Romney. That's the real reason he lost: he had no other vision other than go back to Bush's policies, which got us into this mess in the first place. He basically,...was a flawed candidate from the get-go (as his competition in the Republican primary clearly pointed out!)

DI has hit on why Mr. Obama did so well in Danville: per the article, the Republicans hold a 2,376 registration advantage in Danville, but Mr. Romney won here by only 168 votes. It looks like some of the GOParty Faithful may have grossed-over from the dark side.

Danville is becoming the mid-west of bay area.

To Bill and MMG. With any luck some day Danville might go blue then you will have your long-desired one party Utopia like the Soviet Union. Holding all the statewide offices and with super majorities in the State Senate and Assembly you have all you want. What is the result: Prop. 30 passes with even more taxes added to the highest taxed state in the country when you factor in State Income tax, Sales Tax, and Property Taxes. What does that get us, one of the worst deficits in the country and an 11% unemployment rate. Talk about smoking more and enjoying it less.

Prop. 32 is defeated maintaining public employee unions' stranglehold on the state. What is the result: obscene pensions which are bankrupting us. How's that working for you? Great if you are a public employee.

SANITY PREVAILED !!! As for you Danville Retro Repubs..........try again in 2024 after HC.

I am enjoying all these responses of the people proud of the fact that Danville went for Romney and they are the exact reason why Obama won. Lilly white Danville is a bubble that does not reflect America today. America is a growing diverse country that constantly evolves its greatness. If you can't adapt you will fall behind and I am sorry if so many people in the Danville bubble are so insecure. America will endure and continue to lead the world if we just accept the fact it is not 1920 anymore.

So if you are still insecure stay in the Danville bubble and don't venture out. Oh and by the way don't let the government "help" you by giving those anti American things like Social Security and Medicare.

Where is that vast majority in the popular vote for Obama. Social Justice and entitlements you Kool-Aid drinkers love it. Lets spend, spend spend and who cares how many jobs it costs and runs the deficit over 20 trillion. Don't worry just leave it for your kids and grandkids, they'll have fun cleaning it up..

Apparently, Larry and friends have graduated from "Denial" to "Anger" -- the second stage of grief. Here's hoping for a speedy transition to Stage 5 "Acceptance," so we can all get-on with the nation's work.

Good ole Larry, We need more like you---to ensure the Democratic party wins every election from now.

Keep exercising your freedom of speech. The Democratic Party needs you.

Larry, Larry, Larry...your position amazes me! For ANY Republican to complain about deficit spending, it's obvious you haven't been paying attention. When Ronald Reagan came into office, our National Debt was around 800 Billion. In his 8 years he quadrupled it!(You have a point, the Democrats are known for the 'tax and spend" party. But isn't "Don't tax, but spend even more,....worse??!). Enter George W, who took spending to a whole new level!...Taking from 5 Trillion to 10.6 Trillion. Add on the budget that President Obama inherited his first month in office (through no fault of his own),and the real figure is 12 Trillion (I hope you realize how much W's policies cost us!). Now, every single economist at the time stated that whoever became President, whether it be Obama or McCain, they would have to spend Billions in deficit spending to stop a depression, and that's exactly what Obama did. His actions stabilized our economy, thank God. Now the real work begins: getting both spending and increase tax revenue in place to correct the ship. I for one have more faith in the President's plan, then the Republican's. Trickle-down has never worked, will never work, and those that believe it will (Governor Romney) are just fooling themselves.

I voted for Emken. Had a big clothespin on my nose but most anything is better than DiFi.
Emken could not carry her hometown of Danville? Yes, I am stupid and Emken is a delusional loser. She really thinks she gave DiFi a run?
Her resume is light at best and I hope she just goes away.

Modern Republicans have so much of their own collective identity wrapped up in the belief that they're surrounded by free-loading, job-averse parasites who not only want to smoke weed and have recreational abortions all day long, but want hardworking white Christians like them to pay the tab,Their whole belief system is inherently insulting to everyone outside the tent – and you can't win votes when you're calling people lazy, stoned moochers.

Tom,

You're my idol I just made a pitcher of Kool-Aid just for you.

Keep talking Larry, We love you.

I was somewhat gratified to read that at least a small majority of Danville voters weren't taken in by the fear-mongering and demagoguery of the Obama campaign.

Now that we are under 1-party rule in CA (new state anthem: "Union, Union, Uber Alles"), we shall have a first-hand demonstration of what un-checked Democratic/liberal policies are capable of. The decline of CA (and to a lesser extent, the country) will be slow, so like the proverbial frog in a slowly-heated kettle of water, it will be sometimes hard to observe.

But keep in mind this very simple rule of human nature, that is ALWAYS true in the long run. If you reward something, you get more of it. And if you punish something (or reward it relatively less), then you get less of it. Punishing success and achievement, as is the current trend, inevitably leads to less success. And rewarding poor decisions, (even when very well-intentioned) leads to more of them.

Jerry Brown says that higher taxes won't cause more Californians to leave the state. But that exodus is already happening, slowly, a person, and a company, at a time. Companies will continue to start up and incubate in CA. But they're not going to expand here, at least not if there's a choice. "Greecifornia" here we come!

As for "doing it for the kids", that's a large part of why I voted for Romney. I want our country to be on a sound footing for my kids, and for future grandkids. And kicking the SS and Medicare can down the road, Democrat-style, inevitably leads to insolvency.

One more comment - someone above wrote sneeringly of Danville being "like the midwest". I'm not sure what actual familiarity that person has with the midwest, and with midwesterners.

But my opinion is that we would be very lucky indeed if Danville was (or becomes) "like the midwest". Because that would mean we'd be generally friendly, hard-working, honest people. Obviously there are exceptions everywhere, including some folks who come out of the Chicago political machine....

Cheers!

A friend commented about the election results: Americans have a self destruction wish. True? We will know by 2016.

C-Mudge -- I want to step out of my usual silo and play here, because I think your point about fear-mongering and demagoguery" is fascinating and I hope you'll elaborate on it. See, I would use those same terms to characterize the Republican campaign, at least if you group "lies" in with demagoguery. How could you -- a presumptively reasonable person -- and I -- a completely reasonable one -- look at the same campaign and reach such opposite conclusions?

Would you cite some examples of those terms, from your perspective?

I'll start: I think the Romney campaign fearmongered on MediCare's condition, and lied about the sufficiency of vouchers. Their "welfare" ads were another example -- not only demonstrably fictitious in content, but a conscious dog-whistle to racists. And their late-day "Jeeps to China" claim was so laughably bad that it even back-fired (as Jeeps tend to do, anyway).

Were those things not FM and D to you?

Danville (and Alamo, I assume) thus show why we are a bubble of sanity and solvency in this otherwise blue region of the most laughed at state in the union. Political correctness, which holds co-honors with "diversity" as the most revered character trait for the libs, does not provide expertise in running a business or a political entity such as a city, county, state or, as we have seen all too well, a nation. I believe Simon and Garfunkel said it best -in the next 4 years the USA will be Slip-Slidin' away - you watch!

Hey Proud, I think also outside that bubble are Atherton, Silicon Valley, Woodside, San Francisco and the rest of the places that are really driving the engine of the Bay Area growth (which in case you aren't reading the papers is one of the fastest growing places in the US). And they all voted for Obama. Stay in the bubble of Danville, keep complaining and blaming others and help keep Democrats in power for a long time.

Hey CR Mudgeon, Why do live in such an awful place as Danville where we don"t have generally friendly, hard-working, honest people. Maybe you should stop looking in the mirror and come outside.

I'm not sure what you mean by "locality," but Alamo went for Romney at an even larger percentage: 2879 for Romney and 2185 for Obama.

Smartest folks in the county...

I voted for Bush. Twice. Primarily on fiscal policy. The Republican Party lost me on intolerance, attitudes toward women, fear-mongering, and their whole makers v takers condescension. I really, really miss Republican party leaders I could respect. It's a lousy rotten shame what's become of a once great political party.

Side note: It's perplexing hearing angry Republicans wanting to flee to Canada, the land of high taxes, free health care, marriage equality, legal abortion, and a Conservative Party that's darn progressive by US standards.

Did anyone see the breakdown of the rates of education by state and who they voted for? The states with the top ten most educated residents (with the exception of Nevada) voted Obama, and the states with the lowest rate of education voted Romney. I'm not sure that years of education necessitates a smarter individual, but this is certainly food for thought.

This also sure points to the fact that hardly anyone in Danville is a part of Romney's 47% that he looks on with disdain. I like Sharon's post above as this surely says something. I still say that Danville "bucking the trend" doesn't say much about the intelligence of the citizens here.

I LOVE it! Obama just cut food stamp values by $50 in OHIO starting in January. Yes!
Bloomberg banning free food to hurricane victims because it may have transfats! Unions barring delivery of food and water by non-union workers....liberal stupidity knows no boundaries. Take that Obama voters--more to come with one payer medical insurance.

To John,

You misread my post, I think. I never said that the people in Danville weren't friendly, hard-working, and honest. What I DID say was that people in the midwest struck me as being friendly, hard-working, and honest, and that we would be lucky if we had the same attributes. This was directed primarily at a previous post that seemed to be deriding the midwest. Actually, part of the reason why I like living in Danville so much is that Danville residents seem (to me) to possess these positive attributes to a greater degree than in other areas of California.

In response to Tom Cushing's post, in which he sees fear-mongering and demagoguery on the part of Romney and Republicans, and wonders why I saw the same on the part of Obama and the Democrats, where do I begin?

Time limitations prevent a full response, but just a miscellaneous sampler:

1. Statements that Republicans are out to destroy Medicare and Social Security, and take it away from the elderly. (For one thing, none of the various ideas mentioned by Republicans for bolstering Medicare or SS for the long term, were ever going to be applicable to anyone currently 55 or older.)
2. Joe Biden's infamous "put you back in chains" remark, and racial pandering in general.
3. Various flavors of "the rich need to pay a fair share", when in fact the upper income levels already pay the vast majority of federal income taxes, and some 47% of people/households pay none.
4. Saying that Romney and Republicans wanted to destroy GM and the US auto industry. Actually, allowing GM to go through a regular bankruptcy would have left it stronger today than it is now. Obama's main objective was instead to preserve union contracts, which was done by screwing the holders of GM bonds/debt, by circumventing bankruptcy laws.

There's plenty more, but it IS true that one person's lies and demagoguery are another person's "speaking truth to power" (to use an over-worked term that liberals seem to love). So I get the fact that none of the items on my list mean much to you.

That said, come back in a month or two and try to convince me that the whole Libya-gate (and/or Benghazi-gate) fiasco wasn't one big web of lies and cover-up. The administration and the press did a good job of fending this off and ignoring it until after the election, but now that there is sex involved (Petraeus, Allen, etc.) and the election is safely behind us, the press will finally start doing its job. Key administration folks won't be able to resign fast enough to prevent this story from getting out. This "what did they know, and when did they know it" story is far bigger than Watergate, which seems almost quaint in comparison. "Most corrupt administration evahhh..."

Apparently, C.R. Mudgeon isn't a very good student of history. Or has a faulty memory. Most corrupt administration ever? Really? How many Nixon White House officials went to prison? Too many to count. Bribery, burglary, hush money, conspiracy, "enemies lists," etc. From the Attorney General on down. Even Nixon and Agnew themselves avoided prison only by resigning in disgrace.

To a couple of CRM's points above: On GM, if GM had been required to go through a "regular bankruptcy" without the promise of government loans, GM would have been liquidated (as would Chrysler), resulting in a collapse of the many auto parts suppliers and other businesses that depend on them. Without those suppliers, Ford would likely have gone under as well. Maybe this would have been an acceptable outcome for a corporate raider; but, surely not one that would have allowed the degree of recovery that the Midwest has experienced.

On taxes, yes, many people earn so little that they do not pay federal income taxes. However, they do pay Social Security taxes (on 100% of their incomes, unlike the wealthy who pay only on the first $110,000 of their earned income, and nothing on their dividend income), Medicare taxes, state disability taxes, property taxes (either directly if they are homeowners, or indirectly if they are renters), sales taxes, excise taxes, etc. Hardly a free ride.

Meanwhile, the wealthy have reaped in 93% percent of the income growth in the U.S. during the past 4 years. Why shouldn't they (we) pay a little more, if they (we) are the ones who have received the vast majority of the benefits from the recovery? After all, their/our marginal income tax rates are already the lowest in over 25 years. A return to the Clinton-era taxes seems only fair -- especially since we have benefited so much from the two unfunded wars that the Shrub started.

The numbers translate to 50.5% for Romney, 49.5% for Obama - a surprisingly weak showing and much 'bluer' than expected considering Danville's older/whiter/richer population demographics.

Oh, I remember the Nixon administration well, and it is with full awareness of their corruption that I called the Obama administration the most corrupt ever. What's different between then and now is that the press was both more capable then, and also acted with more integrity. And our collective senses have become more accepting and/or numbed by corrupt politicians.

Actually I don't object to moderate tax increases as part of a combination of significant spending cuts AND moderate tax increases. I just think it is fundamentally wrong to keep shifting more and more of the tax burden onto fewer and fewer people, which has been the trend over the past 12 years. I say 12 years, since the Bush tax cuts actually made the federal income tax MORE progressive than it had been under Clinton. (In short, higher income levels paid a larger share of total income taxes AFTER the Bush cuts were enacted, than under Clinton. Put another way, the largest percentage tax reductions went to lower income levels.)

If retaining all of the Bush tax cuts is viewed as creating insufficient revenue, then it would be better to have small tax increases born by the majority of taxpayers. You could view this as going 1/4, or some other modest fraction of the way back to the Clinton-era tax rates. (I don't advocate going all the way back, since that WOULD put a big damper on economic growth.) Why do I think this makes more sense than Obama's "put all of it on the rich" approach?

- In the long run, it is better for our country that most of us pay at least a small amount of federal taxes, so that we all (or mostly all) have at least some "skin in the game", and feel like we are contributing. This is important psychologically for "both sides". People who are contributing even a very small amount, and also high-income, high-tax people, can both feel like they are helping our country, with less anger, jealousy, and/or resentment on both sides.

- Extremely progressive tax rates are more highly whip-sawed by upturns and downturns in the economy. In contrast a somewhat flatter tax rate schedule (as in the Clinton years) is less volatile (this is part of CA's problem as well)

- The avoidance of quite high marginal rates on higher incomes DOES help to create investment capital for growing the economy.

It IS of course true that lower-income people pay SS and medicare taxes, and that SS has a cap on it. But, I believe that this is entirely appropriate, as the benefits that one receives from SS and medicare are even "flatter", and less proportional to income than the taxes are. And at least for the most part, people understand that they are paying into specific programs that they (hopefully) will at some point specifically benefit from.

Sales taxes are also somewhat regressive, but for now are essentially state and local issues.

As for GM and Chrysler being forced to liquidate if they had gone through bankruptcy, that's ridiculous. There might have been some modest selling of assets as part of the restructuring. But both GM and Chrysler would still be making and selling cars, and with a lower cost structure than they have today. If folks want to believe that Obama "saved GM", that's fine. But what he really saved was the UAW contracts. Follow the (campaign) money, and follow the votes.

We chose Danville because it was most like the midwest. Now if people would only take care of their own lawns, wash their own cars, and clean their own houses, it would be MUCH more like the midwest.

CRM -

Have to disagree with you on the Nixon v. Obama comparison. Nixon was a vindictive, paranoid, venal man, who surrounded himself with political hacks who were chosen more for their loyalty than their capability. Chuck Colson's memorable quote that he "would run over [his] own grandmother" to get Nixon re-elected was only barely hyperbole, as it turned out.

On taxes, what you forget is that the reason that the wealthy paid a higher share of the total federal income tax burden under Bush II is that they were earning a much higher percentage of the total income then than they were during the Clinton years. Totally appropriate to be paying more tax if you are earning more income.

On GM et al., the Romney thinking was that GM would be ushered through bankruptcy with private equity funding waiting on the other side. But, when capital liquidity suddenly dried up in late 2008-early 2009, it simply wasn't available to GM and GM had literally run out of cash and credit. Without government intervention, GM surely would have been liquidated -- and pulled much of the Midwest's economy down with it.

We can certainly afford somewhat higher marginal rates on high-income earners now. Our economy doesn't suffer from a lack of capital. US corporations are sitting on nearly $3 trillion in cash and liquid assets. The economy suffers from a shortage of demand (willing consumers with cash in their pockets). Until we remedy that part of the equation, the economy will continue to limp along.

As for having "skin in the game," yes, we all should feel that we have a stake in the economy and pay a share of the burden. However, I don't believe that most people distinguish among the many taxes they are paying when they contemplate whether they have "skin in the game." All they feel is that they are paying a fair chunk of their income in taxes -- regardless of how it is split among those tax categories. To the extent that they are not paying a federal income tax, but are paying several other categories of tax, it's unlikely that they feel they don't have "skin in the game."

Hooray, more bad economic news for the Obamabots! Bring it all down, baby!

I am surprised at this article. Both my kids' schools had elections in all their classes. Obama won tightly in some and handily in others.

Apparently, in a political sense, Danville has much in common with some of the worst central valley cities. Not good to hear, but I guess a bunch of you can always move to Lodi or Bakersfield and discuss the latest Faux Nuus alert with link-minded thinkers.

Oh, and Larry - if you are so concerned about future spending, how much do you think a war with Iran would have cost us? Because if O'Mitt had been elected, with his Netanyahu-@$$-kissing, that battle seemed inevitable. Maybe the Mittster would have brought back Kissinger, because you know... we didn't have quite enough idiots under Bush.

I'm no big Obama fan at all, but as far as I am concerned a Romney presidency would have been a national nightmare of monumental proportions. And who knows how long it would have been before something "happened" to Mitt, because we all know Ryan was the one the looney right really wanted.

Well, Dave, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Your description of Nixon is perfectly spot-on, of course. You said:

"Have to disagree with you on the Nixon v. Obama comparison. Nixon was a vindictive, paranoid, venal man, who surrounded himself with political hacks who were chosen more for their loyalty than their capability. Chuck Colson's memorable quote that he "would run over [his] own grandmother" to get Nixon re-elected was only barely hyperbole, as it turned out."

But substitute Obama for Nixon, and the combination of Rahm Emmanuel and/or David Axelrod for Colson, and the description remains true. From my perspective, the main difference is that those who agree with Obama's policies don't seem to mind how he gets there.

I stand by my statements that the Bush tax cuts provided more percentage savings at the lower income levels than at the higher income levels, just doing head-to-head comparisons of what individuals at various AGI levels would pay, using both formulas. The shape of the tax "curves" were flatter under Clinton. The Bush cuts also dramatically increased the number of tax-reporting housholds who either owe zero taxes, or even have a "negative tax burden", by both owing no federal tax AND receiving refundable tax credits.

It's a valid point that lower-income people pay other taxes, including sales taxes and SS/Medicare withholding. But those are for different purposes. It is entirely fair to want/expect most households to at least pay a small amount (versus nothing) for the things that the federal income tax supports, including defense, roads, federal programs, etc.

I agree with your point that a key element of reigniting growth is to increase demand for goods and services. But how to do this is very open to debate. Part of the issue with reduced consumer spending is that uncertainty over the economy, and ongoing fear of job-loss (even for the currently employed) has put many consumers into "hunker down" mode. (Even if you couldn't tall this from the traffic lines waiting to get into the new high-end outlet mall in Livermore...)

...the few reasons to leave this town:
-the right wing breeders flooding our schools and then standing against Measure D
-having to field calls from neighbor breeders to tell me who to vote for because of their beliefs
-is Danville in Utah?

I think it would be a good idea to link factual claims. One of the things that Mr. Romney said during the campaign that I agree with is: "you're not entitled to your own facts." None of us is.

So, further to Dave's insight about the auto bailout, and specifically whether private capital was available, fact-checker politifact.com says the following:

"A key question for advocates of a conventional bankruptcy is whether private lenders would have come forward to finance any such deal. The view of most analysts is that the private money would not have been there.

The Economist, one of the bastions of free-market thinking, came around to that view. Originally, it favored no government intervention. In April 2010, it offered an apology to President Obama.

"Given the panic that gripped private purse-strings," the magazine wrote in an editorial. "It is more likely that GM would have been liquidated, sending a cascade of destruction through the supply chain on which its rivals, too, depended." Web Link

---

As far as ascribing Biden's "chains" comment to campaign fear-mongering, it was certainly a stupid thing to say. It was also a one-off comment, by the famously loose-lipped crusader, to a group whose votes were not likely to be in-play, and about which people across the spectrum gave him grief. Pretty trivial, really -- I would liken it to Mr. Romney's staffer inviting the press corps to "kiss my ass." A similarly stupid, off-the-cuff statement that essentially meant nothing.

To Steve, Sorry to hear that you are so happy to hear of the misery of others. Your statement, "Dancing at the misery of NJ and NYC" is so pathetic and childish (your about 8 years old mentally). Just because your man was not voted in, you reveal in the suffering of fellow Americans. Your thinking is very off. Maybe seeking mental health assistance to work through your anger issues that probably run every aspect of your life might help you out of your hate and immature outlook.

To Todd, Your statement, "Bloomberg banning free food to hurricane victims because it may have transfats!" Sorry, you got that wrong. Bloomberg general pushes for deletion of transfats in city foods.

Here is the truth: New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has campaigned to ban food and drinks loaded with salt, fat and sugar in the city but he has no problems feeding it to Sandy victims.

According to reports, the MREs - meals ready to eat - are loaded with more salt and fat than a McDonalds Big Mac and a 21-ounce Coke.
'I was told that folks shouldn’t eat these for more than two days straight,' said one person handing out the meals.

Todd don't be an REPUBLICAN ROBOT IDIOT.

Read more: Web Link
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook