Uber and Lyft expected to prevail in CA ballot measure
1–10 of 43 posts
Re: Uber and Lyft expected to prevail in CA ballot measure
#2This - in addition to all the other results tonight, no matter which candidate ultimately wins - should give pause to many people on HN. Polls are incorrect, you probably live in a bubble, and people of all races and demographics don’t fit in neat stereotypical categories. I hope some serious post-mortems occur that do more than blame foreign interference.
Re: Uber and Lyft expected to prevail in CA ballot measure
#3This link doesn't deserve a post, as it contains only rumors, not any actual news. The specific line in question that clearly states this is:
"according to projections from NBC News"
Re: Uber and Lyft expected to prevail in CA ballot measure
#4We just learned that it takes only $200m to buy a law in the state of California. The state legislature said these workers are employees. The state judicial system said these workers are employees. These companies wouldn't accept that as an answer so they turned to funding the most expensive proposition battle in history with 90% coming down on the one side. This is also in addition to all sorts of free marketing they did through their apps. And to make matters worse, this proposition is near impossible to amend, reform, or repeal by the state legislature.
Re: Uber and Lyft expected to prevail in CA ballot measure
#5We just learned that it takes only $200m to buy a law in the state of California. The state legislature said these workers are employees. The state judicial system said these workers are employees. These companies wouldn't accept that as an answer so they turned to funding the most expensive proposition battle in history with 90% coming down on the one side. This is also in addition to all sorts of free marketing the…
Curious, would you apply the same logic to the other propositions that received massively disproportionate funding on one side (e.g. Prop 16) but still are failing? Perhaps the voters of California don't 100% share the views of the people elected to represent them. That is the disadvantage of first-past-the-post democracy.
Re: Uber and Lyft expected to prevail in CA ballot measure
#6We just learned that it takes only $200m to buy a law in the state of California. The state legislature said these workers are employees. The state judicial system said these workers are employees. These companies wouldn't accept that as an answer so they turned to funding the most expensive proposition battle in history with 90% coming down on the one side. This is also in addition to all sorts of free marketing the…
'Buy a law'? Do you think everyone who voted for it is isn't capable of independent decision-making?
Re: Uber and Lyft expected to prevail in CA ballot measure
#7We just learned that it takes only $200m to buy a law in the state of California. The state legislature said these workers are employees. The state judicial system said these workers are employees. These companies wouldn't accept that as an answer so they turned to funding the most expensive proposition battle in history with 90% coming down on the one side. This is also in addition to all sorts of free marketing the…
Curious, would you apply the same logic to the other propositions that received massively disproportionate funding on one side (e.g. Prop 16) but still are failing? Perhaps the voters of California don't 100% share the views of the people elected to represent them. That is the disadvantage of first-past-the-post democracy.
From ballotpedia[1][2]:
Support Prop 16 - $20m
Oppose Prop 16 - $1m
Support Prop 22 - $202m
Oppose Prop 22 - $20m
We are talking about a $19m difference verses $182m. These are in no way similar campaigns.
[1] - https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Pr...
[2] - https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...
Re: Uber and Lyft expected to prevail in CA ballot measure
#8We just learned that it takes only $200m to buy a law in the state of California. The state legislature said these workers are employees. The state judicial system said these workers are employees. These companies wouldn't accept that as an answer so they turned to funding the most expensive proposition battle in history with 90% coming down on the one side. This is also in addition to all sorts of free marketing the…
Curious, would you apply the same logic to the other propositions that received massively disproportionate funding on one side (e.g. Prop 16) but still are failing? Perhaps the voters of California don't 100% share the views of the people elected to represent them. That is the disadvantage of first-past-the-post democracy.
Haven’t seen a single unskippable yt ad about prop 16
Re: Uber and Lyft expected to prevail in CA ballot measure
#9We just learned that it takes only $200m to buy a law in the state of California. The state legislature said these workers are employees. The state judicial system said these workers are employees. These companies wouldn't accept that as an answer so they turned to funding the most expensive proposition battle in history with 90% coming down on the one side. This is also in addition to all sorts of free marketing the…
I think this is an unnecessarily cynical take. Money certainly matters in politics, but it can't buy enough votes to win on its own. The contingent of people who genuinely dislike AB5 was very motivated, and clearly sizeable
Re: Uber and Lyft expected to prevail in CA ballot measure
#10We just learned that it takes only $200m to buy a law in the state of California. The state legislature said these workers are employees. The state judicial system said these workers are employees. These companies wouldn't accept that as an answer so they turned to funding the most expensive proposition battle in history with 90% coming down on the one side. This is also in addition to all sorts of free marketing the…
'Buy a law'? Do you think everyone who voted for it is isn't capable of independent decision-making?
Everyone? Certainly not. Some people? Sure.
Obviously these companies agree with me too. Why else would they be willing to spend $182m more than the other side in this debate?