From the insights tab, with a date range of the past year, the state where the second most ad money was spent was California (after Pennsylvania).
California is not even close to being a swing state, afaik?
California is not even close to being a swing state, afaik?
Seperately, it brings potential as a source of funding to spend elsewhere specifically because some of the national questions aren't really open. If you are confident in the ROI, you can run ads there to drive fundraising -- especially early on -- and then spend those raised funds in contested elections elsewhere.
The same dynamic happens in soundly "red" markets, although that may not be apparent in this dataset because of the specific demographics of Google advertising.
Exactly. A lot of the ads are fundraising ads, like this one: https://adstransparency.google.com/advertiser/AR059412260615...
There are some big proposed changes to how local bond measures work, rent control, and the criminal justice system, IMO those are the ones spending the most time researching and considering the consequences.
As far as the more niche ones this time around, there's the same-sex marriage prop (which I believe is purely symbolic and doesn't have an actual impact on same sex marriage in California) and the prop designed to force the AIDs Healthcare Foundation to spend more money on AIDS healthcare (IIUC currently they spend most of their money on political causes like lobbying against rezoning that would allow denser housing)
Same-sex marriage is currently outlawed by the California constitution as a result of Prop 8 from 2008. That clause is void as a result of the Hollingsworth and Obergefell decisions, but there are multiple members of the Supreme Court who have explicitly said that they would like to overturn Obergefell, so it's a good idea to get ahead of the potential catastrophe by taking the bad law fully off the books, rather than relying on a capricious and extremist court to stick to a rights-defending decision for any amount of time.
No. RMA lets states ban gay marriage. It just requires them to honour other states' gay marriages.
States banning same-sex marriage within their borders takes away the dignity and respect of same-sex marriages and couples, so it's quite awful. But they can't actively prosecute people for crossing state lines to marry. They have to provide them the same rights as hetero-married couples, even for things like state benefits and taxes.
It's a daily reminder that you're a second class citizen, that your family isn't really a family worth respecting. It matters a great deal.
Imagine a state prohibiting mixed race marriage, and saying "oh it doesn't really matter" because unlawful mixed race couplings can always drive over the state lines somewhere.
It's spit on your face on one of the most important days of your life.
What I said:
> You only need one state to allow non-residents to marry on Zoom
Driving over state lines is an unreasonable burden to getting married. Don't put words in my mouth please.
I also said:
> banning same-sex marriage...takes away the dignity and respect of same-sex marriages and couples, so it's quite awful
That's why it's important to read a whole comment.
I wish the Respect for Marriage Act actually forced states to legalize same-sex marriage. But we should give thanks that it exists, because the worst states can do now is insult same-sex couples. That's quite a difference compared to abortion.
> But we should give thanks that it exists, because the worst states can do now is insult same-sex couples.
No, they can prevent same-sex marriages from taking place. That's identical to abortion. Even more effective, as you can be mailed an abortifacient, but you can't be mailed a wedding. Same-sex marriage, post-RfMA, is in the same position as abortion post-Dobbs. I'm meant to be upset about one but 'give thanks' for the other?
Even setting all of the above aside, you're acting like being insulted is just fine. That a person can go through their lives having their own government - a government of the people, supposedly - insult and denigrate their family. And that they should be thankful it's not worse.
That is one helluva take.
It's a workaround, not a solution.
> you're acting like being insulted is just fine
I said exactly the opposite of that. There's no point continuing this discussion.
You began this thread with a deeply incorrect assertion about a federal law, then someone corrected you, then you asserted that the correction doesn't really matter, and now you're committing to ever more contorted logic to defend that initial incorrect assertion. I would very respectfully suggest that it's sometimes healthy to admit that a take was just bad. It's ok. We all have 'em. I'm sure you're a great dude. Just take the L.
What makes you so sure? Are you a lawyer?
I mean you said stuff like
> as you can be mailed an abortifacient, but you can't be mailed a wedding
Which sounds quite incorrect and absurd to me. Mailing, or even e-mailing, marriage licenses is trivially possible. Meanwhile, there are multiple lawsuits and laws trying to prevent the mailing of abortifacients and/or revoking FDA approvals for abortifacients.
I didn't really feel like rebutting the rest of your post, but it was filled with similar falsehoods and speculation presented as fact.
Zoom weddings were allowed during the pandemic. Plenty of states allow non-residents to marry already. What exactly makes it unworkable?
> I would very respectfully suggest that it's sometimes healthy to admit that a take was just bad. It's ok.
I'd love to. You just haven't been very convincing, sorry. Focus on being more informative and helpful, not argumentative and demeaning. Believe it or not, I'm on your side.
It removes an on-the-books clause that was rendered inoperable by a SCOTUS decision. I think it’s a step above symbolic since any future changes in SCOTUS jurisprudence reversing or partially reversing Obergefell (which I don’t think are at all likely with this court on this issue, but it doesn’t hurt to be prudent) could make it operable again.
Not saying it'll never matter, but if OP has a finite amount of focus IMO it's better to spend it on laws that will have an immediate impact over ones that require multiple hypotheticals to come into play
It revises one statement in the state constitution in a very straightforward way.
It takes an infintessimal amount of focus to decide if you're in favor of that change or not.
Whether the reason it's on this year's ballot is neurotic or strategic is on a level with whether you should buy 4 or 6 rolls of toilet paper next time you're at the store. You already know if you need toilet paper or not, so that difference is relatively inconsequential.
Looks like it. That decision came down around the first time I excised the daily news from my life after spending too many years as a news junkie and before I valued reading court opinions so I missed it.
Re: Focus: Most ballot measures that have ever appeared on the ballot aren’t worth the paper they were printed on, yet they’re still there. Short of eliminating the popular ballot initiative process—something I could get behind—we’re long past the point of asking whether something is “worth” voting on for a reason like that. Someone wanted it on the ballot badly enough to make it happen and by our own laws that’s basically their right, so it’s on the ballot. Just like the mofos who always try to get that dumb kidney dialysis measure passed almost every election cycle.
https://adstransparency.google.com/political?region=21137&to...
As a CA voter I find it very awesome that I could look that up so easily.
EDIT: The sort order isn't part of the URL, so you have to sort by Amount spent: high to low -- blew that one Google!
As the most populous state, California has a lot of political donors - likely the most registered members in a state for both major parties. 1 in 8 Americans are in California. Those many small-value & high-roller donors help finance the swing state operations, but need to be activated. Donors are why both Republican and Democratic party candidates held events in California, when it's not in play.
As usual, XKCD (can’t find the comic) - https://x.com/xkcd/status/1339348000750104576?lang=en
(That tweet is excellent.)
The tweet quotes the alt-text of https://xkcd.com/2399/ “2020 Election Map”:
> There are more Trump voters in California than Texas, more Biden voters in Texas than New York, more Trump voters in New York than Ohio, more Biden voters in Ohio than Massachusetts, more Trump voters in Massachusetts than Mississippi, and more Biden voters in Mississippi than Vermont.