I don’t think that’s the reaction ‘David with Amendment W’ expected…

12 thoughts on “I don’t think that’s the reaction ‘David with Amendment W’ expected…”

1. Just in case you’re curious, Represent.us posts its donor list online: https://represent.us/donor-list/. Note that the 501(c)(3) public charity and the 501(c)(4) social welfare (some say “dark money”) organization with the same name are intimately related.

2. It is out of Massachusetts, home of the Kennedys, so this group cannot be good.

3. I don’t want to hijack this thread, but maybe Pat could start a posting on all of the amendments/IMs? Just based on the mailers, one of them doesn’t look too terrible. Is it still “no on everything” or are some of these worth considering?

   I’ll obviously do my own research, but wondering what other’s thoughts were.

   1. There are 2 good ones, in my opinion. Amendment X says we should have a 55% approval vote to change the Constitution, instead of our current 50% +1. Amendment Z says that any proposed constitutional amendment may only embrace a single subject.

      1. I was thinking ‘yes’ on X but was thinking ‘no’ on Z but that sounds good. Too many say ‘oh, I voted that down because of this or that, I wasn’t opposed (or for) the primary purpose’. Crazy.

      2. Yes, those are two good ones.

      3. Thanks. X is the one I got the mailer on, and it sounded OK just from the postcard. Z wasn’t on my radar yet but I certainly agree with that concept. I’ll look into it before election day.

         1. The only people I’ve seen opposed to ‘Z’ is Dakota Rural Action. Another god reason to be for it !

            1. oops ! That should be “good” reason !

4. Did they respond? I’ve heard from several people that after the initial text you never hear anything back from them.

   Apparently texting the new thing. Any statewide campaign worth its salt seems to be doing it now

5. W is the worst–VOTE NO

6. Vote NO on IM 24, IM 25, and Amendment W.

Comments are closed.