US 2018 November elections

[Tero]

It’s been a bit more of an ugly election here in the prairie. Typically yard sign makers don’t make money in our 250 000 plus city. But with lots of Democrat signs out the Republican had to make some. Even though their governor is 99% sure to win. A Trumpist who pushed for Medicaid expansion block. Some 90 000 who fall between cracks would benefit.

[laklak]

probably blueberry and banana nut muffins

Pumpkin spice, and a double skinny mochachino with two half pumps of caramel.

[Sean Hayden]

It really is amazing to me how many people just don't vote.

I think AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, T-Mobile etc. ought to grow a pair and disable phone features till you vote. You either prove you're not an eligible voter, or that you voted.

[Sean Hayden]

Is it okay to say 'grow a pair'?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdfMr-b2Vf0

[Forty Two]

probably blueberry and banana nut muffins

two half pumps of caramel.

[Forty Two]

It really is amazing to me how many people just don't vote.

I think AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, T-Mobile etc. ought to grow a pair and disable phone features till you vote. You either prove you're not an eligible voter, or that you voted.

That's non-voter suppression of white people. Black people are less likely to have mobile phones, and therefore will not have their phones disabled.

[Forty Two]

Is it okay to say 'grow a pair'?

[Seabass]

--bullshit Tero

I can't get it out of my head that the black voter turnout was amazing for Obama in 2008, and then shit for the midterms in 2010, and then again awesome in 2012, and nowhere in sight again in 2016.


How does that comport with you and everyone else saying the reason for low voter turn out among minorities is voter suppression by Republicans?

SCOTUS took a shit on the Voting Rights Act in 2013. Republicans went to work on suppression immediately.

7 specific ways states made it harder for Americans to vote in 2016
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... oting-2016

The Supreme Court Gutted the Voting Rights Act. What Happened Next in These 8 States Will Not Shock You.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... -court-id/

In the wake of Barack Obama’s election to the presidency in 2008, a panicked GOP, citing illusory ‘voter fraud,’ did what it could wherever it could to restrict voting rights for minorities.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-the-g ... ing-rights

HOW THE GUTTING OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT LED TO HUNDREDS OF CLOSED POLLS
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/kz5 ... osed-polls

[Sean Hayden]

One problem with that Seabass is that the turnout in 2016 was about the same as it had been in 2004, and higher than all other elections from 84 till then. So, what is more likely to account for the drop in minority voter turnout after the 2008 and 2012 elections: that Republicans somehow managed to suppress the vote, but no better than they had for Bush and worse than they had ever done before Bush, or that minorities came out in record numbers to vote for Obama?

Why aren't they coming out in record numbers to oppose Trump and his ilk? I gave one possible explanation already and I still think it looks best.

[Seabass]

Population grows over time, enthusiasm varies with different candidates and elections... there are a lot of variables at play, and you can't boil it down to one simple answer. But voter suppression is clearly a factor, IMO. If you've actually read all the info I and others have posted on this subject and still remain unconvinced, then I don't know what else to tell you...

People are coming out in record numbers by the way. I think voter turnout so far has been more than double what it was at the same point in 2014.

[tattuchu]

Heavy rains today, along with a flood warning. Let's hope we do see a flood -- or at least a giant blue wave. I did my part!

[Sean Hayden]

Population grows over time, enthusiasm varies with different candidates and elections... there are a lot of variables at play, and you can't boil it down to one simple answer. But voter suppression is clearly a factor, IMO. If you've actually read all the info I and others have posted on this subject and still remain unconvinced, then I don't know what else to tell you...

People are coming out in record numbers by the way. I think voter turnout so far has been more than double what it was at the same point in 2014.

Yep, the turnout for this election is impressive, even in Texas.

I also believe voter suppression can play a part. But I don't think it comes close to accounting for why Hillary lost, or why Democrats won't take the House and Senate. Maybe you're not trying to say that, but Tero definitely was...though in fairness I doubt he really believes that. He was likely just pointing out one of the many problems with Republicans and I should have let it be.

[Forty Two]

Rather than gish gallop by making conclusory statements with links, requiring anyone interested to dig in to see what exactly are the "ways" and how they constitute issues or voter suppression, give out the top 3 most egregious examples.

Earlier, I went in and addressed multiple issues of alleged voter suppression, and I showed how they aren't. For example, the Dodge City, Kansas item that you included previously, I set out in detail how the allegation doesn't match the facts, and no voter suppression was taking place at all. That doesn't stop political partisans from CLAIMING there to be voter suppression. Pretty much anything done constitutes voter suppression, if you listen to the various interest groups - change a voting location, voter suppression - don't change a voting location, voter suppression - require an ID, voter suppression - allow 8 different things to qualify as ID and afford cost-free IDs to people, still voter suppression - require a voter registration to be signed, voter suppression.

When these allegations are examined - and written out in plain English, most of what I've seen is overblown and quite simply, politically motivated bullshit.

Look at the Vox article - "oh, my god! 7 ways in which they make it harder to vote! That must be egregious!" - but, if you actually look at it, what did Vox lead with? Exhibit A - long lines at EARLY VOTING places. LOL. You know, early voting is new in the US. A few elections ago, it was very rare. Most of my voting life, you voted on election day, unless you QUALIFIED for an absentee ballot - you had to be absent for reals. Now, most states allow anyone to cast an absentee ballot even if they're not absent. And, early voting has ballooned - it went from a few early voting places, to now most states allow early voting. In my state, there were like 10 different days of early voting. However, when early voting first started, yes, there were lines, because it was new and they weren't sure the resources that were necessary, and with each passing election people get more and more accepting of early voting, so more and more people do it. But, in short, early voting is an extra voting day and time, or multiple extra voting days and times, and to say that increasing the number of days on which people vote is "voter suppression" or "making it harder for people to vote" because sometimes there are lines at the polls, is, well, not fucking reasonable. It's absurd.

And, look at the next one - "voter ID." Fucking hell. Requiring an ID is not "voter suppression" or "making it harder for people to vote." Most other first world countries require an ID. And, here is what Vox says is the big ID problem. "Texas, for example, allows a gun permit and other government-issued IDs but not a student ID." Yes, you know why? Because the gun permit requires the drivers license or other State ID to get it, which sets out the citizenship status. A student ID does not require a driver license, state ID, or any proof of anything - a college can and some do give state IDs to people who are illegal, who are in the country on visas, and who are permanent residents. It doesn't prove what needs to be demonstrated - eligibility to vote.

Vox says "Nebraska cut its early voting period from 35 days to no more than 30 days." Oh, my god! Nebraska has only 30 days of early voting? Voter suppression!!!!

Here's a big fucking example of voter suppression for you -- Vox says the following - apparently with a straight face -- "Kansas passed a law that requires new voters to show proof of citizenship to register to vote." Read that again. Then again. It's making it harder for people to vote for Kansas to pass a law that requires voters to show proof of citizenship to register. Let that sink in. That's what the activists say is an example of voter suppression. However, being a citizen is a prerequisite to voting. How the hell else is anyone to know that a person is a citizen?

Another doozy from Vox - they ominously state that Ohio has - gasp - made it a requirement that a request for an absentee ballot be filled out in a "Very specific way." Ohhhhhhh noooooo!!! That must be onerous. Oh, wait, here's the form, which is available in English and Spanish -- https://www.sos.state.oh.us/globalasset ... nglish.pdf You actually have to give them your name, address, a copy of an ID, and tell them which election you are asking for - and sign it, of course. LOL. Yes, that is voter suppression alright.

I'm not going to root through every single one - but, that's the idea. The allegations amount to nothing -- and in reality, every single change or adjustment to voting procedures, timing, locations, dates, times, forms, etc. is just automatically called voter suppression. Even Indiana's maintenance of voter rolls pursuant to both State and Federal law was called "voter suppression" - i.e. if a state tries to make sure its voter registration rolls are accurate (remove dead people, those ineligible to vote, etc.), it's called voter suppression by the activists.

Next, the requirement that someone actually move their hand to pick up a pen to fill out a ballot is going to be called voter suppression, because moving and writing makes it harder for people to vote than it would be if people didn't have to actually move or write.

[Forty Two]

Heavy rains today, along with a flood warning. Let's hope we do see a flood -- or at least a giant blue wave. I did my part!

That's another thing. I heard a pundit earlier today say that bad weather was a bad sign for Democrats, because Democrats have a harder time voting in bad weather than Republicans.

I mean, they say this shit with a straight face. Democrat voter turnout lower in the rain, therefore it's unfair. No proof, of course, exists that Democrats vote less in the rain or other bad weather than Republicans. But, as I said above, every fucking thing is voter suppression.

Here, I'll start one that's like those parody social justice publications that we laugh about from time to time.

Headline: Daytime Elections Suppress Minority and Democrat Voting.

The long standing practice of states holding their elections exclusively in or near daytime hours, from about 7am to 7pm at the most, operates to disenfranchise minority, poor and working class voters, who tend to vote Democrat. Such voters are more likely to have to work multiple jobs, and therefore have less time off to go and vote, thus making it harder for them to vote, Also, such voters disproportionately work second and/or third shifts, making them very tired during the day and less able to get out and vote. Unless states begin offering voting options between 7pm and 7am, they will continue to suppress the minority vote, and hence the Democratic vote.

Also, the poor and lower economic classes tend to be less educated. As such, they tend not to be as informed as the middle class and up. Since the poor and lower economic classes are disproportionately minority, then they tend to be less interested in or confident about voting in the first place. Their lack of confidence in their own viewpoints leads them to choose not to vote in disproportionate numbers. Since the poor and lower economic classes tend to vote Democratic, more Democrats tend to be reticent to vote or apathetic toward voting than Republicans, and therefore, it's voter suppression.

Likewise, women's vote is suppressed, because they do a disproportionate amount of home chores, family care tasks, and child care. This causes them to have less time than men, who disproportionately work full time outside of the home. Men, therefore, have a disproportionately easy time dropping by the polls on their way too and from work, whereas women are disproportionately taking care of kids, making meals, cleaning houses, and the like. This especially suppresses the votes of stay at home moms, as they are disproportionately unable to make it to the polls. And, of course, most polling places are air conditioned, and therefore, women are less able to stand in line waiting to vote, since we all know that air conditioning units are almost always set to the comfort level of men, which is almost always colder than what women want.

What those Republicans won't do to suppress the vote.

[Seabass]

Population grows over time, enthusiasm varies with different candidates and elections... there are a lot of variables at play, and you can't boil it down to one simple answer. But voter suppression is clearly a factor, IMO. If you've actually read all the info I and others have posted on this subject and still remain unconvinced, then I don't know what else to tell you...

People are coming out in record numbers by the way. I think voter turnout so far has been more than double what it was at the same point in 2014.

Yep, the turnout for this election is impressive, even in Texas.

I also believe voter suppression can play a part. But I don't think it comes close to accounting for why Hillary lost, or why Democrats won't take the House and Senate. Maybe you're not trying to say that, but Tero definitely was...though in fairness I doubt he really believes that. He was likely just pointing out one of the many problems with Republicans and I should have let it be.

Well, sure. It's never down to just one thing. Like I said, there are a lot of variables at play.
As for why the Democrats don't control the house and the senate, you should read this article:

Rigging the vote: how the American right is on the way to permanent minority rule
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... reme-court

After the 2010 census, the Wisconsin legislature (controlled by Republicans) drew a map for the state’s legislative districts explicitly designed to ensure they would retain control of the legislature even if they received a minority of votes. It worked: in 2012, despite receiving only 48.6% of the vote, they won 60 of 99 seats. Democrats won an outright majority of votes cast but secured just 39 seats.

Then there’s the Senate. Because of its bias toward smaller, rural states, a resident of Wyoming has 66 times the voting power in Senate elections as one in California. Thus, in 2016, the Democratic party got 51.4 million votes for its Senate candidates. The Republicans got 40 million. And despite losing by more than 11 million votes, the Republicans won a supermajority (22 of 36) of the seats up for election, holding their majority in the chamber.

The hideously malapportioned Senate and electoral college permit the last piece of the minority rule puzzle to snap into place: the supreme court. In 2016, after losing the contest for the presidency and the Senate by millions of votes, the Republicans were able to install two supreme court justices. There may be more.

In fact, when the Senate confirmed Trump’s first nominee, Neil Gorsuch, it was a watershed moment in American history. For the first time, a president who lost the popular vote had a supreme court nominee confirmed by senators who received fewer votes – nearly 22 million fewer – than the senators that voted against him. And by now, it will not surprise you to discover that the senators who voted for the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh represent 38 million fewer people than the ones who voted no.

Seriously, read the whole article. Our whole system of government is royally fucked up from top to bottom.