Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Badger]

It's possible. A lot of stuff to analyze. There is at least some evidence that voter ID laws and purges of election rolls and the reduction in available polling places in Southern states reduced the black vote by several hundred thousand. Clinton's margins of defeat in several key states were less than 100k apiece.

 

I still don't get the ID outrage.  In VA, I only had to show my driver's license.  I'd like to sympathize, but I have no other idea on how to prove you are who you say you are.  Are Dems saying we should vote on the honors system?  No proof necessary?

[Pariah]

Personally, I couldn't justify voting for either major party candidate--I don't trust Secretary Clinton as far as I could spit a rat, and I think Mr. Trump might actually be mentally ill. To my mind, a vote for either of them was not in the best interest of the nation's future--and would therefore be a wasted vote.

 

But that's just me.

[megaplayboy]

The data is publically available. I even posted it upthread. If there was a gender gap it was remarkably minor. So minor as to not move the election.

 

 

Throwing around loose accusations of sexism is not good unless you have data. So, where's the data?

 

Soar.

The data hasn't been analyzed yet. It took months of research and analysis to discern that Obama lost a few points of support in the 2008 election due to race/racism. It would take similar analysis, not just a glance at a gender gap, to determine whether her gender affected people's votes adversely.

[薔薇語]

The data hasn't been analyzed yet. It took months of research and analysis to discern that Obama lost a few points of support in the 2008 election due to race/racism. It would take similar analysis, not just a glance at a gender gap, to determine whether her gender affected people's votes adversely.

I highly doubt it did given the historic trends for all demos. And as I stated, if there was one it was so minor as to have not really had effect.

 

If it turns out that motivated pollsters can gin up some small shift, then lets talk about it. Now, though, such words just are baseless accusations. Just like how Secretary Clinton folks used to harp on about how Senator Sanders' must be racists and sexist. No proof, no hint of evidence. Only accusation.

 

 

Soar.

[Badger]

I'd b interested in the data of that 2008 election.  And where they got such info.

[megaplayboy]

I still don't get the ID outrage.  In VA, I only had to show my driver's license.  I'd like to sympathize, but I have no other idea on how to prove you are who you say you are.  Are Dems saying we should vote on the honors system?  No proof necessary?

1. Some people are poor or disabled or elderly or all three.

2. A lot of people don't have cars and/or live in areas with poor public transportation

3. In some of these states, things are deliberately set up so there's only one place in the whole county to get your ID, and it's not easily accessible.

4. It is actually possible to get by in society without a photo ID

5. Generally in states that don't require photo ID, when you register, you bring proof of address, like two utility bills. You also sign the registration form, and you sign a form when you show up to vote, too. Obviously, if necessary, the two signatures can be checked against each other.

6. Not every 89 year old has their birth certificate on hand. It may not even exist.

[megaplayboy]

I highly doubt it did given the historic trends for all demos. And as I stated, if there was one it was so minor as to have not really had effect.

 

If it turns out that motivated pollsters can gin up some small shift, then lets talk about it. Now, though, such words just are baseless accusations. Just like how Secretary Clinton folks used to harp on about how Senator Sanders' must be racists and sexist. No proof, no hint of evidence. Only accusation.

 

 

Soar.

Who were these Clinton proxies making these accusations?

[薔薇語]

Did you miss the whole Burnie Bro mess? That was the whole point.

 

 

Soar.

[megaplayboy]

Did you miss the whole Burnie Bro mess? That was the whole point.

 

 

Soar.

There were "Bernie Bros"--online supporters of Sanders manifesting racism and sexism through their online comments. They harassed black and female Clinton supporters. Whether they were a significant chunk of Sanders supporters, I tend to doubt. But often it's a vocal minority who creates a disproportionate impression, usually bad. But I don't think that was a knock on Sanders himself.

[TheDarkness]

The data is publically available. I even posted some of it upthread. If there was a gender gap it was remarkably minor. So minor as to not move the election.

 

 

Throwing around loose accusations of sexism is not good unless you have data. So, where's the data?

 

Soar.

Dude, he didn't make an 'accusation', he made an idle speculation.

 

Further, you cannot make the conclusions off of raw data that you just claimed to do AND claim certitude. In sample sizes that large, you have no way, without a lot more data, to read smaller influences within the set.

[Badger]

1. Some people are poor or disabled or elderly or all three.

2. A lot of people don't have cars and/or live in areas with poor public transportation

3. In some of these states, things are deliberately set up so there's only one place in the whole county to get your ID, and it's not easily accessible.

4. It is actually possible to get by in society without a photo ID

5. Generally in states that don't require photo ID, when you register, you bring proof of address, like two utility bills. You also sign the registration form, and you sign a form when you show up to vote, too. Obviously, if necessary, the two signatures can be checked against each other.

6. Not every 89 year old has their birth certificate on hand. It may not even exist.

 

So, match signatures, if time provides, and hope.  At least that is more than I previously thought.

 

It does make some sense, some of those would have trouble.  (far less, than made to believe, as there seem to be massive efforts to come to such people at least in urban areas).  And I keep my license in my glove compartment, as its need is rare.  Ironically, I lost it after voting, and have to replace it when the DMV opens this morning.  And I find it quite ironic, the burden of proof, to replace this license (which you would think would be in the system to begin with) is greater than such a vital, life-changing event like voting.

[Badger]

Dude, he didn't make an 'accusation', he made an idle speculation.

 

Further, you cannot make the conclusions off of raw data that you just claimed to do AND claim certitude. In sample sizes that large, you have no way, without a lot more data, to read smaller influences within the set.

 

 

To be fair, idle speculation often proves dangerous as it often gets clung to as gospel.   

[Clonus]

I still don't get the ID outrage.  In VA, I only had to show my driver's license.

 

And EVERYONE has a car, right?  

[Pattern Ghost]

And EVERYONE has a car, right?  

 

Every state will issue a photo ID card, so that non-drivers can have something to use in lieu of a driver's license.

 

Since these are also issued at the DMV, the issue of availability for some people remains unchanged.

 

IMO, any state requiring state issued ID cards to vote needs to provide them for free and to provide an ID-mobile to go to more rural areas to ensure everyone who wants one can get one. But we know that isn't going to happen, since the requirement is about voter suppression.

[Clonus]

Never mind

[TheDarkness]

To be fair, idle speculation often proves dangerous as it often gets clung to as gospel.   

 

And when someone does that, one has a legitimate complaint against the person who does that. Not against every other person who ever brings up the topic.

[Old Man]

Every state will issue a photo ID card, so that non-drivers can have something to use in lieu of a driver's license.

 

Since these are also issued at the DMV, the issue of availability for some people remains unchanged.

 

IMO, any state requiring state issued ID cards to vote needs to provide them for free and to provide an ID-mobile to go to more rural areas to ensure everyone who wants one can get one. But we know that isn't going to happen, since the requirement is about voter suppression.

Literally all you have to do is ink the voter's thumb so you know they only voted once. That's how it's done in poor countries and it's plenty. There was like one case of actual voter fraud this election. One vote. As opposed to basically icing out all poor people with suspiciously difficult ID requirements.

 

Don't even get me started on all the other voter suppression that went on this cycle. It's disgusting.

[megaplayboy]

Requiring photo ID is one thing. But when it's pointed out that it's more difficult for some people to get it, and they do nothing; when it's coupled with a reduction in the number of polling places, thus increasing inconvenience and wait time; when it's coupled with overzealous purging of voter rolls(sometimes involving private citizens mailing letters and having people purged if the letters are returned--there are a variety of problems with this); when some states even reduce the number of places to get id, or the price--well, that's when it veers deeply into voter suppression.

I took a course on voting rights law in law school. Some folks might be surprised, but the effort to disenfranchise the black vote, particularly in the South, did not end with the passage of the Voting Rights Act. Various workarounds were tried, including at large city council elections(no district based elections meant that predominantly black districts were unable to get seats on the council). Voter ID(as implemented, not in principle or in theory, but as implemented by partisan Republican state legislatures) is a continuation of that disenfranchisement by other means. Since people of color have a higher percentage or their community living in poverty, a larger percentage also have no ID. So the net effect is that a larger portion of black voters can't vote. The solution to this is to couple the voter ID law with an aggressive effort to make sure everyone has an ID BEFORE THE LAW IS PUT INTO EFFECT. Not to make acquisition of the ID the duty of the indigent citizenry. I understand why people don't get why it's a problem, but when you start to imagine yourself in different circumstances, it becomes easier to see the problem. The official legal briefs go into these problems at great length.

[Pattern Ghost]

Literally all you have to do is ink the voter's thumb so you know they only voted once. That's how it's done in poor countries and it's plenty. There was like one case of actual voter fraud this election. One vote. As opposed to basically icing out all poor people with suspiciously difficult ID requirements.

 

Don't even get me started on all the other voter suppression that went on this cycle. It's disgusting.

 

You realize I agree that the ID requirement is bad, right? (Just checking.)

[Badger]

Every state will issue a photo ID card, so that non-drivers can have something to use in lieu of a driver's license.

 

Since these are also issued at the DMV, the issue of availability for some people remains unchanged.

 

IMO, any state requiring state issued ID cards to vote needs to provide them for free and to provide an ID-mobile to go to more rural areas to ensure everyone who wants one can get one. But we know that isn't going to happen, since the requirement is about voter suppression.

 

 

Yeah, I've always liked that idea that the state take responsibility.  I believe the Dems still cried voter suppression (I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not)

[Pattern Ghost]

Yeah, I've always liked that idea that the state take responsibility.  I believe the Dems still cried voter suppression (I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not)

 

Both sides practice as much voter suppression as they can get away with.

[Pattern Ghost]

A little levity:

 

 

At least we get four years of prime standup material. (Though so far it's been bordering on gallows humor.)

[薔薇語]

Dude, he didn't make an 'accusation', he made an idle speculation.

Idle speculation that plays far too well into this narrative of finding a boogieman. Some over simplified reason to blame others for why Sec. Clinton lost. It couldn't have been her character, policies, or campaign message - No, there must be sexists, so many that it caused her to lose! Nevermind there is no data to suggest it nor a personal will to work it. Vague speculation is enough.

 

When there is actual data to support implying your fellow citizens are sexist, let's talk. But this tired old tactic of implying Racism and sexism at every turn must end. And it is an implication. These loose lip speculations breed mistrust and full faced lies.

 

Soar.

[薔薇語]

NSFW: Language

 

Liberal Comedian discusses why Sec. Clinton lost from his perspective. It would seem to be picking up traction on the web.

 

 

 

 

Soar.

[Old Man]

Both sides practice as much voter suppression as they can get away with.

 

Could you point me to an example of voter suppression by Democrats?  Thanks!