The Results in the Danielson-Gonzalez Supreme Court Race Are a Disgrace

Comments

1
To change to appointing judges instead of electing them we'll have to amend the state constitution. Does anybody around here know how to operate a democracy with enough skill to get something along those lines accomplished any more? We have lots of good shouters, but doers not so much. Suggestions?
2
Electing them a smart move? no
3
not so fast.

perhaps voters knew that Gonzalez being appointed by a democrat is basically democratic. or that being a king county seattleish type person, or yes, a Hispanic, "probably a democrat." so all things being equal perhaps the part of the state that's basically republican used their right to vote to vote for someone who apparently shared their values. the other guy.

now, this doesn't dismiss racism and it's true, the above explanation can be combined with the assumption or view that yes, some of the danielson vote, is racist. but to suggest all of it is, is to engage in ...oh in unwarranted assumptions.

and btw yes, it'd be better if the media did a better job of reporting on things like actual experience, you know, what lawsuits has this guy danielson done? or gonzalez. or ....ferguson or dunn. Am still waiting for actual reporting on the biggest legal triumph in the courtroom by ferguson or dunn.

instead of endless stories assuming ferguson's best because he's a democrat. i mean, I like to know that but there's basically not any reporting on his actual legal experience and there's not much on dunn's either.
4
Whenever I see how other states choose judges I am happy to live in Alaska. Judicial selection and retention is about the only political thing we do right.
5
Voters are the product of public schools.
6
#1, Not enough people. Remember Bush received a lot of votes in 2000 and 2004 independent of the electoral fraud.

Eli, race isn't just a problem with the Okies outside of King County. Try some of your fellow KC citizens:

--Jane Hague, the DUI lush who lied about receiving a college degree to get a job with King County elections gets re-elected to her KC seat over an upstanding African American Attorney who worked for Governor Gregoire--the kind of AA white people say that other AA's should aspire to be like. If the incumbent was an AA caught for DUI and found to have lied about a having a college degree and the challenger was an upstanding White Attorney, who the hell would have won??????

--Prior to the last general election for the city council, I received an email from Bobby Forch's campaign manager who said that Forch's lawn signs were pulled out of the ground and trashed. Did that happen to Ms. Godden?
7
@3 I'm sorry that you don't pay attention, but that's not the fault of the media. Frankly, I don't even live in Seattle and I knew enough about the two to realize that Danielson is just a terrible choice that should have come nowhere near Gonzalez.

And...saying "This guy is hispanic and probably doesn't share my values." Is. Incredibly. Racist. That's exactly the damn problem!
8
41% of WA voters thought Sarah Palin was qualified to be Vice President, so I'm not sure an "informed" electorate would really make a difference.
9
The county-by-county breakdown of the Gonzalez-Danielson race is not dissimilar from the gubernatorial results.

See:

http://vote.wa.gov/results/current/Gover…

Standing on the left-side of things, this is a disgrace for sure. As an observer, though, this is to be expected. Suburban conservatives and the rural Tea Party folks don't like urban liberals. Voters don't vote based on the basis meritocracy, but on a more personal or emotional take on what candidates represent to them. Without question, too, the ideological differences between left and right, urban and non-urban voters that center on more abstract concepts like capitalism, religiosity, and the role of government compliment their implicit and explicit views on race, ethnicity, and sexuality.

If you voting patterns across the nation based on geographic metrics you'd see a surprising degree of agreement.

We live in an urban bubble, with corporate America on the margins, and surrounded by right-wing talk radio and country music.
10
And Randy Travis speaks for them... Now that's COUNTRY!
11
At least he won.
12
Ah, Eastern Washington... Our own little Mississippi enclave, right here in the Beautiful PNW... :p
13
Disgracefully ignorant and dangerous...

Isn't that every US election?
14
Ditto @8 and @9. The results shook out exactly how you'd expect.

I don't doubt having a white-sounding name may be an advantage, but it seems disingenuous to claim the only way to explain this result is by prejudice.
15
@7 chill out dude. "And...saying "This guy is hispanic and probably doesn't share my values." Is. Incredibly. Racist." No. Its. An. Alternative. Simpler. Hypothesis. That. Knowing. Gonzalez.Was.Appointed.By.A.D.Governor.Who''s.Liberal.He Likely.Is.Too.Therefore.If.You.Are.Among.The. 43%. Who're.GOP.It's.Rational.To.Vote.For.The.Other.Guy.BasedOn.Ideology.Not.Race.

and hey we liberals hire campaign consultants who target voters for GOTV/send fundraising letters/target swing states based on things like the % latino and black, the % white working class so please, stop the ur r racist meme okay. I am sure you have done nothign your entire life about the de jure racism fo folks in puerto rico who have no federal voting rights. it's five million hispanics, that our nation subjects to colonial second class status. now that's racist. isn't your blithe ignorance of that issue more racist than a rural washingtontonian voter's voting for the nonliberal in this race? with so much real racism about, it's destructive of the antiracism movement to cry wolf at the drop of a hat. and I mean a fedora, a white hipster hat like they ban in montauk, not a Panama hat, okay?
16
If Gonzalez wasn't conveniently "Hispanic" (whatever race that is), Eli would say that Danielson didn't suck enough cock to be elected. You can't win with the Stranger; they practice the same bigotry, it's just acceptable on the left.
17
Gonzalez is a former prosecutor, for fuck's sake. In other words, he understands first hand how to be tough on crime in a way voters in Eastern Washington would ostensibly want. He handled the Ahmed Rassam case!

I don't normally agree when people cry racism, but it's spot on here. The fact that he not only lost, but got completely slaughtered, in a bunch of Eastern Washington counties is for one reason only: he's hispanic.
18
Oh 16, how you do prattle on. You're so cute when you're being indignant.
19
@3 and 15. Your explanation is too simplistic and does not fit with the facts involved in this particular election. Sure, if Gonzalez was the "lefty" candidate and Danielson was the "right-wing" candidate, your idea might fly. Unfortunately, that's not even close to what happened in this race. Gonzalez is a non-political judicial candidate who spent a ton of time campaigning in eastern Washington. He was endorsed by every significant politician, media outlet, and judge from around the entire state and across every end of the political spectrum. He's also a former city and federal prosecutor. Basically,his professional background is along the "law-and-order" line that most conservatives tend to go for.

Danielson, on the other hand, was a non-candidate. He has no credentials, had no endorsements (not even from conservative politicians), ran no campaign, and participated in no part of the election other than paying to put his name on the ballot. He has never been a judge, has lost every election he has ran in, and lost in his own county where he lives and practices. He was, in every aspect, a joke of a candidate.

This race should not have been close. It was not two equal candidates on opposite ends of the political spectrum. It was a highly-qualified candidate versus an thoroughly unqualified opponent.

So the question has to be: Why would most counties in this state vote for a thoroughly unqualified person to sit as a judge on the state's highest court? I think this article calls it for what it is.
20
Spot on, Eli. This election should be a wake-up call to the bar.
21
@8, 9, 14

The major difference is that the elections you're looking at included Republican and Democratic party affiliations, and many people do vote based on Party when they don't have (or are too lazy to consider) other qualifications.

In a judicial race, there is nothing else on the ballot to judge a candidate by other than their name and any racial, ethnic, gender or other demographic implications a name might hold.

It's incredible to believe that people who voted for Bruce Danielson over Steve Gonzalez did so after exercising electoral due diligence, researching their qualifications, reviewed endorsements, and somehow came to the conclusion that the totally unqualified Anglo would be a better Supreme Court justice than the overwhelmingly qualified and experienced Hispanic.
22
And letting racists vote for mayors and governors and legislators and the president is OK? But all of a sudden if it's a judge then we're going to worry something bad might happen?

Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia weren't elected; they were nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The damage they can do is the same no matter how they got into office; appointed or elected these justices reflect the ignorant, racist, reactionary American demographic. There's no magic cure for living in a democracy filled with troglodytes: they'll put people like themselves in power one way or another.
23
@22 Bad analogy. Thomas and Scalia at least have legal qualifications, even if they have a philosophy many people disagree with. In contrast, Danielson has no qualifications, and no one knows his philosophy. When a Republican president tried to appoint someone utterly unqualified (Harriet Miers), even Republican senators disapproved.
24
@23

But given a choice between objective legal facts, and their ideology, they choose ideology. So what difference does it make if they're qualified (and Thomas isn't, when you come down to it)? What good are legal qualifications if the outcome is predetermined by ideological prejudice? Nobody is fooled by the competent-sounding legal fig leaves Scalia and Thomas put over their blatantly partisan judgements.

At least if these two clowns were elected Republicans answerable to a clear redneck cracker constituency, there'd be no more of this charade.
25
@19:
"@3 and 15. Your explanation is too simplistic and does not fit with the facts involved in this particular election. Sure, if Gonzalez was the "lefty" candidate and Danielson was the "right-wing" candidate, your idea might fly. Unfortunately, that's not even close to what happened in this race. Gonzalez is a non-political judicial candidate who spent a ton of time campaigning in eastern Washington. He was endorsed by every significant politician, media outlet, and judge from around the entire state and across every end of the political spectrum. He's also a former city and federal prosecutor. Basically,his professional background is along the "law-and-order" line that most conservatives tend to go for.

Danielson, on the other hand, was a non-candidate. He has no credentials, had no endorsements (not even from conservative politicians), ran no campaign, and participated in no part of the election other than paying to put his name on the ballot. He has never been a judge, has lost every election he has ran in, and lost in his own county where he lives and practices. He was, in every aspect, a joke of a candidate."

ahem. you are cherry picking and twisting. first the thesis was voters had no information or low information, now you suppose they are 100% informed. in fact, they're not. so it's a reasonable hypothesis that the 43% vote is basically based on an assumption gonzalez is a D type person. Being appointed by a D Governor. Being from SEattle and king county and such. Look, this is a hypothesis. This is as reasonable as hypothesizing voters are racist. Also, if you read what I wrote, I freely and reasonably said yes of course SOME of that 43% is racist, and my main point was it's unreasonable to conclude ALL of it is based SOLELY on race.

"This race should not have been close. It was not two equal candidates on opposite ends of the political spectrum. It was a highly-qualified candidate versus an thoroughly unqualified opponent. " Sorry but most voters do nto buy into your notion of qualifications, preferring simplistic low information indicators and also in judicial races they certainly don't go around measuring legal qualifications, experience, or adding up how many bar associations liked the candidate. they dont'. sorry. I look at that stuff, most voters don't.
"So the question has to be: Why would most counties in this state vote for a thoroughly unqualified person to sit as a judge on the state's highest court? " Becuase they do not agree he's thoroughlyy unqualified -- they think he's relatively qualified because he's not a liberal, he's not appointed by a governor they didn't vote for. And like I said, they do assume most hispanics are liberal.
"I think this article calls it for what it is. " yes, we know, but the conclusion isn't support for the conclusion. you've simply restated your heartfelt opposition to my pov without actually rebutting any of it, and you've added a host of complicating assumptions like now voters have full knowledge, now voters adopt your view of qualifications in judicial races, etc.

btw, face it, our de jure depriving puerto rico of voting rights is far more racist than what happened in one judicial ection in washington state. please get over the fact that you live in a state wherein 43% are conservative, they're not going to line up worshiping the same judicial candidate you do. And yes, I gave money to gonzalez, $250 in fact, I just have this penchant for logic and reason.
26
Great post about racially polarized voting. It's been around forever, but this judicial race sure makes it clear to a lot more people. We need to pass the State Voting Rights Act.
27
Then what's the excuse in Franklin & Adams Counties, which are both majority Hispanic but where Danielson did even better than the statewide numbers?
28
@25: I don't know why the Puerto Rico voting thing keeps coming up from you. I agree with you 100% that Puerto Rico should have a vote in national elections, and that it is a racist travesty that they do not. But it seems like apples and oranges to this election issue.

The problem with your counter-hypothesis is that it also assumes a degree of knowledge and information that we don't know that voters had. You say voters knew he was appointed by a D governor and that he is from Seattle/King County. That information is not published on ballots, and there was no statewide voter's guide sent out, so why do you assume that voters knew this information? It is just as likely that if they knew this information, they would have also sought out information about Danielson, and found how lacking he was in qualifications.

Even if your hypothesis was correct, and voters were voting for Danielson because they found him to be more in line with their conservative political views, that an equally terrifying prospect. That would mean that a large number of voters would prefer a wildly unqualified person to sit on our state's highest court because he might, in some vague and undefined way, be more conservative.

The fact is that despite being appointed by Gov. Gregoire, Gonzalez was endorsed by gobs of Republicans and conservatives. His opponent was endorsed by none of those same Republicans and conservatives. So the argument that this was likely about politics is not as persuasive to me as the more-likely scenario: uninformed voters who have no information about candidates are more likely to vote for a candidate with an Anglo name.
29
When voters are effectively flipping a coin one way or the other, the winning campaign merely getting a *landslide* 13 point victory isn't evidence of racism, just uninformed voters. Asking someone to vote for a judge is like asking someone uninterested in pro football who the tight end for the Seahawks should be.
30
@29 - But if everyone flipped a coin, the race would be closer - 50/50. In Adams county, Danielson got 70% of the vote. That's an oddly shaped coin.

On the other hand, when you analyze election results and see whites voting for whites, Latinos voting for Latinos, and blacks voting for blacks, well, you have a problem. One that deserves our attention if, in fact, we'd like to encourage participation from everyone in our democracy rather than convincing people to stay away from the polls, choose not to run for office, or change their names.
31
Let's suppose that voters do read the voters pamphlet, mailed with (or just prior to) the mail-in ballot.

Mr Danielson's statement:

“The Washington Supreme Court is often a citizen’s Court of last resort and has the final say on issues of Washington law. The U.S. Constitution and Washington State’s Constitution are the ultimate laws upon which decisions must be made. The Constitution should not be a living, breathing document that changes with the whims of the Court in response to politics or popular demand. The Constitution is the bedrock when deciding cases. Judges should be elected without influence from a political party or special interest group. Voters should not settle for a judge who has been appointed by the most partisan office of the State. Nor should a judicial candidate be allowed to purchase an election through contributions from special interest groups and/or attorneys whose cases could be the subject of that Judge’s rulings. As a Supreme Court justice, I will insure fundamental constitutional principals are not offended or altered for the sake of accommodating prevailing popular sentiment. I am not afraid to challenge prior case law that misapplies fundamental constitutional principals and rights. My tenure in the Supreme Court will be one free of special interest associations or the politics that can call into question Judge’s impartiality”

Aside from misspelling "principles" (a rather cute Tea Party wink to itself?), Danielson's claim that. "The Constitution should not be a living, breathing document that changes with the whims of the Court in response to politics or popular demand," is a central plank of the Tea Party platform - a constitutional 'originalism' that rhetorically purports to restore the principles of the founders, but as many suspect is a dog-whistle appeal to a time when pesky colored folks did not threaten our sovereignty.

Moreover, his stated experience was as a, "Business owner, manager, and...laborer," which, "prior to law school enhances my insight as to how our State’s laws affect property and individual rights." The free market is the real world. Government does not get "us". And so on.

Gonzalez's statement, conversely, is a list of awards and markers of merit. It is an Urban narrative of academic and professional achievement. He speaks, "Japanese, Spanish, and Chinese."

For suburban and rural county voters - to whom Danielson's implicit and explicit values would appeal, it is all in black and white right there. In the pamphlet. No mystery. None at all.

....And his last name isn't Hispanic.
32
@31 - good theory. Problem is, no pamphlet was mailed in any county except the four that are most urban - and voted for Gonzalez.
33
SHIT!!!

Theory shelved

[To be repurposed after general election]

Stay tuned.

34
This article is spot on and is a shame that #1 people do not do their research prior to voting and #2 that an anglo-saxon name would garner so many votes over a latino name. Luckily Gonzalez won, Washington's judicial system would have truly suffered if Danielson took the bench.
35
Sam Reed should have put out the voters guide.
36
Steve Gonzalez has a whole slate of left-leaning endorsements from unions to democrats to pro-choice, so is it any wonder the map looks like any other democrat vs. republican race?
37
The only way to explain this is prejudice.


Really? Thats the only way to explain it?

You guys (or maybe just Eli) have been harping on the racism thing in this contest for a while now. Your speculation may be perfectly right, but do you have any non-circumstantial evidence to support it?

I mean, we get it. The well-qualified incumbent with the Hispanic name should have trounced the poorly qualified candidate with the white-sounding name. You have a hypothesis that it was closer than it should have been due to racism. Now are you just going to blather on about it, or are you going to substantiate that hypothesis? Are you going to earnestly look for alternate explanations, or are you just going to stick with your initial conclusion and just let confirmation bias do all the work?

It's not that your theory is unsound, it's just that you haven't added anything to it in a week or so, and you're supposed to at least pretend to be doing journalism, aren't you?
38
@33, good theories are still good even though they're not applicable in all cases.

But the theory may still be applicable here. We're not considering the fact that Republicans can actually communicate with other Republicans even though they're counties apart, and in fact do. Republicans are excellent at communication. If only liberals were.
39
I am honored to have been elected. I will serve all of Washington despite the counts in different counties. It is a wonderful job and I respect the court and our system of government. I was endorsed by labor, but also by the Association of Washington Business, by Inslee but also by McKenna even before I was appointed. I will continue to rule without fear or favor to anyone. Sincerely, Justice Gonzalez
40
I'm not sure when I realized that one of the benefits of being named Chad as opposed to Tyrone was that nobody knew I was black until I showed up.
41
But don't rural voters have the right to vote for the white guy over the Latino guy?

Not sure that people voting their prejudices is something that should be stopped.
42
You seriously think most people will read voter guides? urban or rural? You're hilarious.
43
Racism has played a huge role in politics and every other aspect of this country since before it was a country. Why should any of us be surprised it still does?

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the number of racial and other hate groups in the United Stated has exploded in a backlash to Obama's election - going from a few dozen to more than 400.

It is a disgrace, un-Americian, unlawful, un-Christian, and unkind.
It is the result when each and every one of us tolerates the little day-to-day things that make racism, sexism, and all the other isms seem like okay ideas. It is the result when we allow people to be elected to lead us who espouse a them-vs-us rhetoric. It is the result when we allow money to be more important than principals.

Democracy is an ugly, messy business. It's only virtue is it's better than all the alternatives. Perhaps some of you would prefer a system like Syria - I wouldn't.

@5 got it mostly right. There is no 'solution' that will take away the disgrace and keep it from coming back. Only by educating ourselves and our children can we reduce it. We have to denounce it in schools, churches, clubs, businesses, and most particularly in the halls of government. But if it ever disappears, we will no longer be in a democracy.

We humans rule this planet =because= we are diverse and adaptable. When we eliminate any piece of that diversity, we shoot ourselves in the food and plant the seeds of future failures. That applies equally to diverse skin color, diverse cultures, and diverse opinions about the worth of those who have different skin or culture from us.
44
It seems this article and most of the commenters may be ignoring the elephant in the livingroom. That is, the issue of abortion plays a huge role who voters choose. Danielson is a LifePAC recommended candidate, whereas Gonzalez has the letters Ab and PP by his name in their 2012 Primary Elections guide, indicating that he supports abortion rights and is supported by Planned Parenthood. Yes, the State of Washington did not send out voting guides this year, but non-urban citizens are as well plugged-in as urbanites to the Internet, and need only google "anti-abortion candidates Washington State" to find their pro-life PAC approved candidates. I will wager that even in this economy, many voters are still single-issue voters, and are fueled not by bigotry, but by a single-minded focus on the issue that for them, trumps all others. These are the voters that elected George W Bush both times, and will bring us more equally inept elected officials in the future if we do not wake up. Far from being a bunch of barefoot, ignorant, bigoted yokels with hay in their teeth, conservative anti-abortion voters are connected, both online and through their religious organizations, and have no qualms about dictating their morality, as they see it, to the rest of us. All other issues take a far back seat to this issue in their minds, and that has allowed the big-business Republican Party to get in bed with the far-right Christian Coalition types for their votes. The Daneilson - Gonzales race is just one small example of the same scenario playing out all across the country.
45
"To change to appointing judges instead of electing them we'll have to amend the state constitution. Does anybody around here know how to operate a democracy with enough skill to get something along those lines accomplished any more?"

Uh, yes actually... the United States Federal Government. That's how they pick THEIR Supreme Court justices.
46
A Colored Sissy FTW!
47
@28: the PR thing keeps coming up because it's real, serious, de jure discrimination, largely based on race, yet most american liberals dont' give a shit. proving that their finding racism in places where the evidence doesn't likely show it it more about feeling good tribally, than actually fighting real racism.

now to respond.

@25: "But it seems like apples and oranges to this election issue." Actually, the PR thing is like a mountain or an Everest of race discrimination, compared to the presumed inferred suspected discrimination in a supreme court race where the latino guy WON which would be more like the small molehill. Mountain, to molehill.
"The problem with your counter-hypothesis is that it also assumes a degree of knowledge and information that we don't know that voters had." my hypothesis and others' all make assumptions. "You say voters knew he was appointed by a D governor and that he is from Seattle/King County. That information is not published on ballots" um info never is, but today? lots of people have the web, read papers, etc. Do you assume rural people are ignorant? likely many are. But not all.", and there was no statewide voter's guide sent out, so why do you assume that voters knew this information? " Because it's reasonable to assume many voters got some information and in ANY story about Gonzalez one of the first facts noted is how he got into the position inthe first place. "It is just as likely that if they knew this information, they would have also sought out information about Danielson, and found how lacking he was in qualifications." There you go again. You assume the voters match the rational voter paradigm you have, or that they buy into the notion there are strict legal qualifications. They don't. They vote their ideology JUST LIKE YOU AND ME VOTE FOR MORE LIBERAL JUDGES. Dammit, don't be so obtuse.
"Even if your hypothesis was correct, and voters were voting for Danielson because they found him to be more in line with their conservative political views, that an equally terrifying prospect." NO IT'S NOT. Because that's NOT RACIST WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT.

" That would mean that a large number of voters would prefer a wildly unqualified person to sit on our state's highest court because he might, in some vague and undefined way, be more conservative. " Your arrogance is stunning. Again, they don't buy your faux notion of objective qualifications, and believe me, just like you and me vote for judges based in part on whether they uphold gar marriage, people who're conservative also vote their ideology.

"The fact is that despite being appointed by Gov. Gregoire, Gonzalez was endorsed by gobs of Republicans and conservatives. His opponent was endorsed by none of those same Republicans and conservatives. " I think the fact of the gregoire appointment is certainly enough for me to pose my hyupotehsis. Also, now you're switching horses midstream again from "voters don't konw shit!" to "voters knew all the endorsements!"

"So the argument that this was likely about politics is not as persuasive to me as the more-likely scenario: uninformed voters who have no information "

Or, an alternative, we have 43% who include both racists to some unknown degree, and conservatives who vote based on ideological signifiers.

BTW I have not heard one coment that gonzalez is in fact conservative or danielson is in fact liberal, so it goes to show. The bottom line is when people make judgemnts and there is a nonracist reason that may be inferred, there's really no reason to infer racism except your own assumption that a particular group is racist.

If you learn that 99% of all murders are men, you "know" that's not sexism because you "know" based on experience...in fact men are more violent.
IF you learn that blacks commit crimes of violence out of proportion to population share you *know" this isn't racially caused but results from cultural or economic factors or other racist institutions like our racist drug laws. See, you *read* the bare stats you don't just go from statistical disproportionality to a conclusion./
In the gonzales race, I conceded admitted stted from the start: YES some of the danielson vote is racist. your position would gain a great deal of credibility if you similarly humbly acknowledged that some of danielson's vote isn't racist. the position that's it's all racist, therefore a disgrace, etc., is bullshit. the electoral map in this race basically mathces every statewide red blue map for the last thirty years. conservative people don't like liberals, hello, is that news to you? you shouldn't take that fact as "proving" they're racist when you don't really got the goods on racism. And you should focus on the real racism like our denying voting rights to PR residents if you're truly concerned about racism against hispanics. no mames guey no seas tan gringo y tan tonto. Calmate. la gente de los pueblos aqui, los blancos, algunos son racistas y otras no, verdad? ten una poca de gracia 'mano.
48
Danny's favorite HomoRetailer continues its plunge....

JC Penney 2Q earnings disaster
By ANNE D'INNOCENZIO AP Retail Writer
The Associated PressNEW YORK (AP) —

"J.C. Penney Co. offered up grisly details Friday of a terrible second quarter.

The midpriced department store chain reported a bigger-than-expected loss and plummeting sales. Shoppers are still not buying into a bold new gay-friendly advertising strategy. Penney even withdrew its full-year profit guidance.

After the report, Moody's Investors Services downgraded Penney's rating deeper into junk-bond terrain.

The bleak performance marked the second-straight quarter of severe sales declines since Penney featured two homosexual men in a Fathers' Day advertisement. The report confirmed it's going to be a hard sell to shoppers who are used to traditional marriage."
49
Eli. Were you equally perplexed by the 97% of black voters voting for a president they knew little about?
50
So it's only a WP problem, right?