Winners and Losers
The Mayor
The corporate takeover of LAUSD
Developers
Public Employee Unions EXCEPT IBEW
The Blogger Known as Mulholland Terrace
Wendy Greuel
Mike Gatto
Paul Krekorian
Lydia Guiterrez
Losers
IBEW
Medical marijuana collectives
MayorSam bloggers
Clean Sweep
CDs 4, 6, 10, 12 and 14
Walter Moore
Mike Trujillo
LA Weekly
The City of Los Angeles
The Truly Blessed by God Just in time for Lent
Tom LaBonge
Jose Huizar
Labels: 2011 city council election
Posted by Michael Higby @ 3/09/2011 11:21:00 AM
25 Comments:
SOUR GRAPES
Higby
OUT OF TOUCH
Red Spot
I don't know another set of writers anywhere who seem to enjoy so much the fact that they're ALWAYS wrong, except the Mayor Sam owners/bloggers.
HOW MANY TIMES to you need to have you "champions" SOUNDLY defeated by the real and legitimate democratic processes of our fair city before you take a HARD look in the mirror, and just ONCE ask...
"Is is me? Is it possible I (Higby) am the one that's completely wrong about L.A.?
(Or, in his case), "It we us? Is I am (Red Spot), out of touched and barked up the wrong treed?"
Mayor Sam,
Why did you leave Phil Jennerjahn off of the losers list?
He was wrong about EVERYthing he picked. Not some, not a lot, but EVERYthing Phil Jennerjahn picked was wrong.
In fact, with respect to Steven Box, he first threw him under the bus. Then, when he saw Box was getting a lot of buzz, he decided at the last minute to support him. And then, finally, not only did Box lose, he came in LAST place, in true Phil Jennerjahn style.
So, bringing us back to the question, why did you leave Phil off of the Loser's List?
He's not one of The Mayor Sam bloggers, and hasn't been for more than a year or two.
It's really odd how you "bend over" to protect this nincompoop's feelings.
Oh, I just remembered, Zuma Dogg was wrong about ALMOST everything. Why is HE off of your Loser's List, too?
Just curious.
Thank in advance for answering.
Higby other than Krekorian, your prognostications were as bad as anyone's.
Someone made a good point recently, about your really suspect hiring of RED SPOT, MAILANDER, HAIKULO AND VALLEY DOPE. All people you ultimately fired.
Sounds like you're not only the biggest loser, save Phil and Scott, but you're something of a mush when it comes to picking talent.
Higby-
Can you give us a recap of Phil Jennerjahn's picks?
Since you insist he is so smart, why don't you find us a single vote he picked right yesterday.
Just one.
Oh, don't forget, your boy LOU PUGLIESE got his ASS kicked. You keep trying to shove him down everyone's throats and people have the horse sense to ignore your endorsement of him time and again. Time for him to lower his sights, like maybe writing for Mayor Sam! ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
12 hours ago, Higby wrote "Stephen Box will upset the apple cart, which we need."
UH, I DON'T THINK SO HIGBY!
BOX CAME IN THIRD!
NOT IN SECOND!
IN THIRD!
YOU MAY FANCY YOURSELF AS SOMEONE WITH POLITICAL KNOW-HOW, BUT YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT!
In all seriousness, Scott Johnson needs to be added to the Losers list. Higby, you know it's true, he knows it's true, so why not do it?!
He's such a fucken dumb ass...
TODAY, THERE ARE NO WINNERS ONLY LOOSERS. A VERY SAD DAY FOR LA. Even those that think they came ahead are losers they will be the cause of their families and friends to suffer the consequences of living in a city that has lost its soul, its empathy and the dream of a better future. Now you may rejoice at an empty victory your ego aggrandizement keeps you blind there are no winners only LOOSERS
Winners:
The people of L.A. for selecting their OWN leaders, and not being swayed by the rabid rambling of a few malcontents who think they're "smarter" than the rest of us.
(If you'd damn smart how come you can't ever figure out how to get a few thousand MORE votes in districts with 100,000 to 150,000 registered voters?)
Yessssss, LOSER Turd-jillo (another "Mayor Sams" by-product, right?)
Just think, without his screwups, Huizar would have probably rolled up to 70-75 percent of the vote.
3:01 PM=Kingpin of the Losers. Even though the point is correct.
When evaluating the formula of "winner vs loser," you account to time/energy/money spent versus result produced. Being a winner or loser as a political activist standard is different from that of a horse race handicapper. Not about trying to pick the winners. That's a different skill.
5% of the city voted.
5%!
Any one who thinks the City of LA won yesterday is on something.
All of this bitching and moaning about tyranny and oppression etc., how the rich rule the country, or how special interest run all govt... and 95% of the people stayed home.
The city has an unemployment rate of 14%. What were those folks doing?
If we can't get half of our voting population to vote for elections than we as a whole deserve the deep dry rectal thrusting our elected officials give us.
folks like ron kaye can celebrate how "close" some races were, but at the end of they day the same ass clowns, have retained power for another 4 years.
LA Clean Sweep would have worked had there been one energetic and dynamic candidate to be the face of the movement and carry the mantle.
3:01
Get a grip. L.A. still has a soul, we're making headway, and there's no reason for anyone to slit their wrists.
I dream of a better future, and having lived through everything from the Watts riots of the '60s, the gaslines of the '70s, the world's worst smog, the Rampart scandals and everything in between, I can guarantee you the present it better than the past, and the future will be better still.
The City's current fiscal emergencies are a speedbump in the grand scheme of things.
Things are getting better, it's just the navel gazers who can't see it.
5:26
You're the one who's "on" something, but I can guarantee you, it's not your college MATH-lete team.
12 percent of registered voters voted (you CAN'T use "5 percent" --- as if the other 95 percent even COULD all vote). HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of those other "non" voters are still under the age of 18. Many thousands more aren't even citizens, and so forth.
STICK with what's true, and stop trying to INFLATE the "non" voters to make a silly point.
12 percent is STILL quite a bit more than 4 years ago, and a low turnout is NOT untypical for an off-cycle election with only councilmembers (no mayor running). When you consider that half the districts didn't even HAVE a council race going, what EXACTLY would make them rush to the polls... a "dynamic" candidate in the NEXT district (that they couldn't even VOTE for?)
If the City ran elections at the same time as U.S. President, congress, etc. you STILL probably would have even 35-40 percent casting votes for Councilmembers.
STOP the incessant whining, and lying to yourself that IF ONLY everyone else voted, MY SIDE would win.
If 30, 50, or even 80 percent of the City's registered voted yesterday (and THAT would take a massive crisis to be brewing), the results would very likely have been the same -- with the SAME people winning, just with larger vote counts.
You have NO facts that would indicate otherwise.
Zuma Dogg was wrong about everything yesterday, except Bernie Parks.
You mean the Zuma Dogg who didn't spend the month before the elections going on TV 35 urging voters as he has in the past; who put his political blog on hold a week before the elections; didn't spend a cent; and is boasting of retirement life at the beach? And it's not about picking the winners.
Of course the corrupt city hall machine will win. So he will pick "losers" more times, than not. It's about making a difference in the close elections with a 1%-2% margin. (Which sometimes these council and ballot measures like Hahn's parcel tax, measure b., and Park's election came down to.)
And in the Parks election, Zuma Dogg got lucky being right on that one. Cause Parks was the grass roots candidate in that election versus the DWP union backed candidate. (And looks as though he only squeaked out the victory because he was an incumbent.)
(Isn't all of the above what you would expect Zuma Dogg to say? LOL!)
Mayor Sam, shouldn't phil j. be on the loser's list? I don't think he got any winners. Not that that surprises anyone. I like Phil, but he has zero political instincts.
Higby, spot on in your election analysis.
It appears that some of you are confusing people's guesses as to who will win and people's endorsements of those they want to win.
I have more respect for those who put themselves behind good candidates and lose than those with perfect track records of picking the winners.
9:02pm = Higby
Uh, HIGBY, Phil not only ENDORSED ALL of the LOSING candidates, everyone who he DID endorse lost.
That's quite a record he has going there.
Last place in every RACE he's been in. Quitting Recall City Hall and his own campaign BOTH ON THE FIRST DAY. And not picking OR endorsing ANY winners yesterday.
At least Higby picked ONE winner, Krekorian.
No, you have to admit, none of us can remember the last time, if ever, Phil ever called something correctly. The Super Bowl and other irrelevant festitivities don't count. We're talking about LA politics.
"Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown."
I pity you, Higby, it would be so easy to hang "Biggest Loser" or "Really Heavyweight Journalist" on you, but there are bigger losers, and you wouldn't know journalism if you fell over it.
You're a blogger, which like hollywood waiter=failed actor. Blogger=failed writer. At least Mailander has real credits and actually fact checks.
Hang this blog up, get off your fat ass and into the gym, and take a shot at a real life before your bitterness consumes you like the black hole of the self hatred you wear on the sleeves of your super-sized wardrobe.
You won't publish this, but we know you've read it and YOU have to live with it, and yourself, every motherfuckin' day for the rest of your sad, sad life.
@9:51 Right on! Higby, get a life, finally.
And, the day Walter Moore is a loser is the day you are winner ~ it's never going to happen.
THE LOSERS ARE THE PEOPLE OF LOS ANGELES WHO WILL PAY FOR THIS OUTCOME SO WILL THEIR CHILDREN FOR YEARS TO COME. NO WINNERS! PERIOD!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home