How so?

 

I just don't get how there was never a necessity to have an ID to vote from the get go. How do they moderate if people already voted? How they do they know an individual is a legal citizen from that state? Don't poor conservatives typically live out in the sticks and poor liberals typically live in big cities? I would imagine it's easier to get an ID in the south side of Chicago than it would be in Appalachia no? People really think these policies are the reason Trump won by 77 electoral votes?

 

The voter suppression stuff is confusing to me because even where it exists it doesn't change the outcome. If poor minorities are the target, where do poor minorities live? In big cities. Which vote democrat anyway.

Buy the EC is a state wide election, as are governorships and Senate seats. If you win by 20k votes and suppressed b21k city votes, it doesn't matter that "the city" still voted Democratic.

It may not be easier to get that id of you live in the city and they've shut down the local dmv's and severely limited the hours. These are things that have happened and will continue to happen.

 

Voter suppression plays a role in politics. Saying "it caused this outcome" in a particular case is hard to say with certainty, but while you chose to highlight the EV margin, that obscures that the number of votes he won those states by was really only a handful, about 80k.

 

There's lots of stuff out there on how this type of voter suppression works in theory and in practice.

 

I honestly don't know the answer to this - have their been studies to figure out how many votes we're talking about here? 80k in a single state seems like an awful lot when you're talking about misinformation tactics.

 

This is why i'm fully behind mail in ballots in every state. Get rid of this argument once and for all.

The voter suppression stuff is confusing to me because even where it exists it doesn't change the outcome. If poor minorities are the target, where do poor minorities live? In big cities. Which vote democrat anyway.

Weird, I was under the impression there were a lot of poor minorities in southern states.

I honestly don't know the answer to this - have their been studies to figure out how many votes we're talking about here? 80k in a single state seems like an awful lot when you're talking about misinformation tactics.

 

This is why i'm fully behind mail in ballots in every state. Get rid of this argument once and for all.

 

Yes, but I'm on my phone so if I remember links later. And that was 80k combined across three states, not 80k in each.

 

All mail ballots are actually ironically more prone to voter fraud, but it's not been a problem in Washington or Oregon where they've been implemented.

 

Buy the EC is a state wide election, as are governorships and Senate seats. If you win by 20k votes and suppressed b21k city votes, it doesn't matter that "the city" still voted Democratic.

 

Right, but in most states with large populations of poor minorities you're in states that are pro-democrat anyway - California, Illinois, New York, etc.

 

States like Wisconsin and Michigan may be close, but I just have a really hard time believing 80k people didn't vote because of suppression efforts when it looks like (without doing a deep dive) voter turnout for certain groups, like inner-city blacks, were down across the country and seemingly at the same rates. I don't recall reading stories that black voter turnout in detroit was down 60% versus something like 20% in other states.

More condescension from Reddy...shocking. I get it, you don't like me. If you actual plan on sticking around the site just ignore me. I can do without the pettiness.

Brother, I don't like you because that's all you've ever given to me. I didn't even know who you were when I came back from my ban and it was just BS from the start.

 

And don't threaten me. I'm not doing anything that breaks any rules. I'm sure you can handle it.

Weird, I was under the impression there were a lot of poor minorities in southern states.

 

Yeah and he won a lot of those states convincingly. Point being, even if we assume lower black turnout was ENTIRELY due to suppression efforts, in MOST states it still wouldn't have mattered.

 

In close states maybe it did. But i'd like a study showing actual figures of votes that were suppressed due to direct efforts on the part of the GOP. My hunch is it doesn't have the impact you guys believe, but I could be wrong.

Where did I threaten you? I asked you to ignore me because you can't play nice. I ask the thread for information about a topic and you condescend me. A poster responds to my post and you dont agree with it so you condescend him. It's divisive and unnecessary.

I gave you information and a link to statistics and research, you just conveniently ignored that part.

Yeah and he won a lot of those states convincingly. Point being, even if we assume lower black turnout was ENTIRELY due to suppression efforts, in MOST states it still wouldn't have mattered.

 

In close states maybe it did. But i'd like a study showing actual figures of votes that were suppressed due to direct efforts on the part of the GOP. My hunch is it doesn't have the impact you guys believe, but I could be wrong.

Places like Georgia, Texas, North/South Carolina it begins to matter more and more as the demographics shift further and further towards latinos/blacks and away from whites.

For instance, yeah Trump won a few traditionally blue states, but Texas has never been closer over the last 30 years. Voter suppression is a GOP tactic to defend against the eventuality where red states flip blue due to minority demographics.

For instance, yeah Trump won a few traditionally blue states, but Texas has never been closer over the last 30 years. Voter suppression is a GOP tactic to defend against the eventuality where red states flip blue due to minority demographics.

 

Texas' shift has more to do with whites than minorities.

You also ignored the request to substantiate your claim of being threatened there victim.

If we're going to continue this squabble, please PM me, because it doesn't belong here. I'd be happy to answer your question.

Texas' shift has more to do with whites than minorities.

Yeah? (seriously asking, shockingly not being snarky)

Yeah? (seriously asking, shockingly not being snarky)

 

I mean minorities are growing there like everywhere, but 10 years ago you didn't have a liberal hotbed like Austin. I think there's been a sizeable influx of young liberals moving down there.

 

edit: Dallas too. I believe that's strongly Dem now.

Edited January 26, 20179 yr by JenksIsMyHero

I mean minorities are growing there like everywhere, but 10 years ago you didn't have a liberal hotbed like Austin. I think there's been a sizeable influx of young liberals moving down there.

That's fair.

For instance, yeah Trump won a few traditionally blue states, but Texas has never been closer over the last 30 years. Voter suppression is a GOP tactic to defend against the eventuality where red states flip blue due to minority demographics.

 

See that's where I can't buy in. If the GOP is undertaking these successful efforts in states it controls, Texas shouldn't be in play at all because the GOP owns it. They control it by a 2:1 margin in the legislature. If their efforts were so successful, the margins wouldn't be shrinking there, but them gaining in states where they have less control.

See that's where I can't buy in. If the GOP is undertaking these successful efforts in states it controls, Texas shouldn't be in play at all because the GOP owns it. They control it by a 2:1 margin in the legislature. If their efforts were so successful, the margins wouldn't be shrinking there, but them gaining in states where they have less control.

You're right - they control the governors seat, the legislature, and none of that is likely to change any time soon. Unfortunately the GOP and legislature of Texas can't manipulate the popular vote in Presidential races nearly as easily as they can the legislature races through gerrymandering. It actually makes perfect sense. If it weren't for the GOP efforts at the local level in Texas, it would be much more blue than it is now.

 

The GOP can't stop progress, but they're really really good at slowing it down.

Edited January 26, 20179 yr by Reddy

You're right - they control the governors seat, the legislature, and none of that is likely to change any time soon. Unfortunately the GOP and legislature of Texas can't manipulate the popular vote nearly as easily as they can the legislature seats with gerrymandering. It actually makes perfect sense. If it weren't for the GOP efforts at the local level in Texas, it would be much more blue than it is now.

 

The GOP can't stop progress, but they're really really good at slowing it down.

 

So why did Michigan go to the GOP, with much less of those advantages and the same sorts of minority rates of population?

So why did Michigan go to the GOP, with much less of those advantages and the same sorts of minority rates of population?

Because of the rust belt workers who bought what Trump was selling. The "white-lash". Whatever you want to call it.

 

Honestly, that was an anomaly that Trump noticed and tapped into much more than it's indicative of future demographic trends.

Edited January 26, 20179 yr by Reddy

Because of the rust belt workers who bought what Trump was selling. The "white-lash". Whatever you want to call it.

 

Honestly, that was an anomaly that Trump noticed and tapped into much more than it's indicative of future demographic trends.

 

With all of the energy field workers in the state of Texas, and all of the manufacturing and industry they have down there, especially along the Rio Grande, the results are very different.

Essentially what happened is that Robbie Mook and the DNC felt that the very thing I'm talking about in Texas also was a given in traditionally blue states. Their numbers and statistics and demographic information showed no need to spend time in those rust belt states. They were so obsessed with their high-tech statistics and projections and algorithms that they failed to realize that people are human beings.

 

That doesn't make those nationwide demographic statistics false, it simply means that this was a unique situation, and that Donald Trump just happened to be the right candidate to tap into that straight white fear and economic disenfranchisement that existed in those states.

With all of the energy field workers in the state of Texas, and all of the manufacturing and industry they have down there, especially along the Rio Grande, the results are very different.

I don't believe Trump went to Texas, did he?

I don't believe Trump went to Texas, did he?

 

A quick google search tells me that isn't true. In fact one story was actually asking why he was campaigning in Texas.

A quick google search tells me that isn't true. In fact one story was actually asking why he was campaigning in Texas.

Cool. Yeah I wasn't sure, but the point was - essentially - that he spent a lot more resources in the rust belt than he did in Texas.