16% of the electorate even bothered to vote
that means 84% chose “none of the above”
Don't get your panties in a wad there buckaroo. Houston has a history of electing whack job mayors. Probably has something to do with the number of votes that can be easily “bought” in the inner city area.
Jonathan Martin & Ben Smith are homosexual lovers so take their “reporting” with a grain of salt.
Here is the real reason that she got in. Houston voters had a choice between a dangerous communist maniac or a bull dyke on steroids.
Who would you vote for? Decisions, decisions.
Conservatives who stayed home (7% total voter turnout) sent a message that they "can't be bothered".
Even going to the poll and only voting for one or more of the other offices would have sent a message of non-approval.
But none of this really matters to Houston voters. Gotta go Christmas shopping or watch the game on tv. "Why it was in the 40s outside!"
She beat an African American lawyer who was a community organizer.
So yes, Houston is setting a trend.
An anti-Obama trend.
This message has been brought to you by the Department of Accurate Historical Facts, formerly known as the department of revisionists.
With the lousy crop of mayoral candidates we had, Parker and Gene Locke were the two top vote getters.
Both are uber-liberal.
I voted for Locke, as to my mind homosexuality is a mental disorder, nearly as bad as liberalism. When the two are combined, that’s a bigger negative than just a plain liberal.
Houston has a fairly large homosexual community, and they are extremely politically active. We also have more than our fair share of liberals who are also politically active.
With only 16% voting, she was able to muster a 56% victory. Had it been a more normal turnout, she’d have lost. Faggotry is not that popular amongst the regular voters, even Houston’s regular voters.