Author Topic: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate  (Read 557271 times)

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2769
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1500 on: May 09, 2016, 10:46:54 AM »
It will be interesting to see who gets the youth vote that Sanders has currently monopolized.  Will more go towards Clinton, to Trump, or will they stay home?   To be sure, the under 30 demographic has had the worst voter turnout in every modern election - I see no reason yet why this year will be any different.

I don't want to pick on you, but I don't know why this is a question.  John Kerry won the youth vote 60-40 with higher turnout among the youth vote than Obama in 2012.  Clinton will win a higher share than that:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/04/25/young-voters-overwhelmingly-prefer-clinton-over-trump-poll/

And, I would guess more young people will turn out for a Clinton/Trump election than a Kerry/Bush election.

Is there any data to suggest that Clinton won't run away with the youth vote and the turnout will be similar to the past few elections?

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7674
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1501 on: May 09, 2016, 11:32:35 AM »
It will be interesting to see who gets the youth vote that Sanders has currently monopolized.  Will more go towards Clinton, to Trump, or will they stay home?   To be sure, the under 30 demographic has had the worst voter turnout in every modern election - I see no reason yet why this year will be any different.

I don't want to pick on you, but I don't know why this is a question.  John Kerry won the youth vote 60-40 with higher turnout among the youth vote than Obama in 2012.  Clinton will win a higher share than that:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/04/25/young-voters-overwhelmingly-prefer-clinton-over-trump-poll/

And, I would guess more young people will turn out for a Clinton/Trump election than a Kerry/Bush election.

Is there any data to suggest that Clinton won't run away with the youth vote and the turnout will be similar to the past few elections?

I'm not quite sure why you think that might be picking on me... I asked it as an open question. I certainly do not take any offense in having a conversation.
Forummm was the one who talked about Clinton having "a ton of trouble getting the youth vote already."  My two counter-points were basically that 1) to date the "youth vote" has largely gone to Sanders, and with his presumed exit it will flow somewhere else, and 2) the 'youth' vote has historically been the least important demographic, simply because they vote at such a lower percentage.
http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7360
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1502 on: May 09, 2016, 11:59:29 AM »
It will be interesting to see who gets the youth vote that Sanders has currently monopolized.  Will more go towards Clinton, to Trump, or will they stay home?   To be sure, the under 30 demographic has had the worst voter turnout in every modern election - I see no reason yet why this year will be any different.

I don't want to pick on you, but I don't know why this is a question.  John Kerry won the youth vote 60-40 with higher turnout among the youth vote than Obama in 2012.  Clinton will win a higher share than that:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/04/25/young-voters-overwhelmingly-prefer-clinton-over-trump-poll/

And, I would guess more young people will turn out for a Clinton/Trump election than a Kerry/Bush election.

Is there any data to suggest that Clinton won't run away with the youth vote and the turnout will be similar to the past few elections?

I'm not quite sure why you think that might be picking on me... I asked it as an open question. I certainly do not take any offense in having a conversation.
Forummm was the one who talked about Clinton having "a ton of trouble getting the youth vote already."  My two counter-points were basically that 1) to date the "youth vote" has largely gone to Sanders, and with his presumed exit it will flow somewhere else, and 2) the 'youth' vote has historically been the least important demographic, simply because they vote at such a lower percentage.
http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics

I think Clinton will win the youth vote, but it's (of course) margin of victory and turnout that matter. She's having trouble in the primaries, and a lot of those people are currently saying that they won't vote for her in the general. They may change their minds. They may stay home. If a lot of young people are turned off by the candidates then they just might stay home in even larger numbers than usual and that will lower Clinton's tally. One of the best things Clinton can do is to motivate turnout, and especially among the people that will be more likely to vote for her.

An axiom of electoral politics in the US: Democratic_share(all citizens) > Democratic_share(registered voters) > Democratic_share(actual voters). If everyone voted, Democrats would win much more frequently than they do, and almost never lose the presidency. Instead, the actual voters skew older, richer, and much more conservative than the actual country as a whole. This is the reasoning behind the epidemic of voting restriction going on in places with Republican office holders. They are trying to make it harder for people to vote because they know that lower turnout means better chances for Republican candidates. Further, they are specifically trying to get lower turnout among college students and minorities, because those demos also skew heavily Democratic. Hence the significant reduction in polling places in those areas, reduction or elimination of early voting, voter ID laws, etc.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1503 on: May 09, 2016, 12:12:59 PM »
Before I begin, I want to point out that I am NOT a Trump fan or supporter.

I hear from a lot of friends and family that they just cannot understand why anyone likes Trump. It's a total mystery to them. I would like to give my take on where his support comes from.

Trump resonates really well with working white men, like "Joe Sixpack." There is a reason for this. For at least a decade (and even more so the past couple years), the popular cultural sentiment in America towards Joe Sixpack has been one of overt hostility. The cultural message that Joe Sixpack gets basically boils down to this: "Your purpose in this country is to work, buy stuff, and pay taxes. That's it. Your concerns are invalid. You are racist, uneducated, unenlightened, and privileged. Stay in your lane. Go to work, pay your taxes, and keep quiet. Your opinions are not valid. Stay seated at the kids table while the women and minorities are talking over here at the adults table."

Now Trump comes along and tells Joe Sixpack that his concerns ARE valid. Joe is not a bigot for feeling uncomfortable with Caitlin Jenner in the girl's bathroom with his daughter. Joe isn't ignorant and uneducated because he doesn't agree with everything John Stewart/Oliver says. Joe Sixpack and his father and grandfather built this country, and they shouldn't have to take a back seat to illegal immigrants.

Trump's popularity is the totally predictable backlash to the left's arrogant attitude towards "flyover country."


« Last Edit: May 09, 2016, 12:16:19 PM by winkeyman »

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1504 on: May 09, 2016, 12:29:38 PM »
Trump's popularity is the totally predictable backlash to the left's arrogant attitude towards "flyover country."

So, the left's policies are skewing the Republican primary process? Interesting concept, but the right certainly has some culpability through their race to the bottom (anti-intellectual, strongly evangelical) pandering, as well.
No, really. I spend a lot of time thinking about rocks.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1505 on: May 09, 2016, 12:42:57 PM »
Trump's popularity is the totally predictable backlash to the left's arrogant attitude towards "flyover country."

So, the left's policies are skewing the Republican primary process? Interesting concept, but the right certainly has some culpability through their race to the bottom (anti-intellectual, strongly evangelical) pandering, as well.

Yep. You have a whole bunch of people who are tired of being told they are worthless anti-intellectual cretins. And Trump is telling them they have value.

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4193
  • Location: CT
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1506 on: May 09, 2016, 12:49:49 PM »
It doesn't actually explain his popularity though. He isn't saying anything new from the Republican base. He's just capitalizing on already established political party culture trend. It's not a new strategy for Republicans to turn to their base and tell them that the various "not them bogeymen" are out to get them.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1454
  • Location: MA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1507 on: May 09, 2016, 01:03:55 PM »
Quote
I don't think this is a good idea at all. First, only 2 years difference makes it meaningless so it's really a waste of time. And he looks to be in fine health, so it won't really play. But also, who cares if he dies? I mean seriously--people could feel more comfortable voting for him if they think he might die and then they could get to whoever the VP is. GOPers are much more comfortable with Christie or Kasich or (almost) whoever Drumpf will select as a running mate. His death would be a feature, not a bug.

It also highlights how old Hillary is, and she's having a ton of trouble getting the youth vote already. Drumpf doesn't have problems with cross generational appeal.

I agree with this.    And besides "if elected, Mr. Drumpf, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the Presidency." 

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1454
  • Location: MA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1508 on: May 09, 2016, 01:12:57 PM »
I do think part of Trump's appeal is due to the intellectual left's dismissal of the white working class.  Even in their positive messaging, there is a lot to potentially take offense to. 

"You should follow your passion!", "Everyone should be able to go to college.", "Trades are dead end jobs." 

For years the white working class has been sold the idea that the only desirable jobs are desk jobs with upward career trajectory to management.   
 
If you look at Trump, many of his speech patterns, activities and mannerisms resonate with the working class.  Remember his WWF days?  Reality TV? 

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1509 on: May 09, 2016, 01:13:49 PM »
It doesn't actually explain his popularity though. He isn't saying anything new from the Republican base. He's just capitalizing on already established political party culture trend. It's not a new strategy for Republicans to turn to their base and tell them that the various "not them bogeymen" are out to get them.

And there we have it again: Joe Sixpack is an idiot, easily led by his betters due to unfounded fears of nonexistent boogeymen who are out to get them. His opinions are not valid, they are based on ignorance and fear and stupidity and privilege.

This is exactly the attitude that Trump is capitalizing on.

Only Republicans do this. Democratic politicians don't motivate their base by capitalizing on their fears of boogeymen like CEOs, corporations, the rich.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7674
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1510 on: May 09, 2016, 01:14:19 PM »

I think Clinton will win the youth vote, but it's (of course) margin of victory and turnout that matter. She's having trouble in the primaries, and a lot of those people are currently saying that they won't vote for her in the general. They may change their minds. They may stay home. If a lot of young people are turned off by the candidates then they just might stay home in even larger numbers than usual and that will lower Clinton's tally. One of the best things Clinton can do is to motivate turnout, and especially among the people that will be more likely to vote for her.

An axiom of electoral politics in the US: Democratic_share(all citizens) > Democratic_share(registered voters) > Democratic_share(actual voters). If everyone voted, Democrats would win much more frequently than they do, and almost never lose the presidency. Instead, the actual voters skew older, richer, and much more conservative than the actual country as a whole. This is the reasoning behind the epidemic of voting restriction going on in places with Republican office holders....

Here I agree with you.
One thing I constantly wonder about is how high voter turnout will actually be in November.  At the moment I think it will pretty low. 
Looking back at past presidential elections - 2008 (Obama/McCain -57%)  had the highest voter turnout since the 1960s, while 1996 (Clinton/Dole/Perot -49% ), 1988 (Bush/Dukakis - 50%) and 2000 (Bush/Gore/Nader 50%) had the lowest turnout post WWII.

I just don't see as many people voting this year as in 2008.  If anything, the enthusiasm (or lack thereof for the two candidates) suggests to me we might have an  even lower turnout than we did in 1996. 

Regarding young voters, in each of those 'down' years, the 18-29 demographic failed to break 35%, while the over 60 demographic maintained a voter turnout in the high 60s%.   Put another way - in poor voter turnout years, the percent of voters who vote over the age of 60 is about twice what those 18-29.

If just half of all young people cast votes I think Trump would loose in a landslide. I'm just cynical in that department.  Time will tell.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4193
  • Location: CT
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1511 on: May 09, 2016, 01:16:01 PM »
It doesn't actually explain his popularity though. He isn't saying anything new from the Republican base. He's just capitalizing on already established political party culture trend. It's not a new strategy for Republicans to turn to their base and tell them that the various "not them bogeymen" are out to get them.

And there we have it again: Joe Sixpack is an idiot, easily led by his betters due to unfounded fears of nonexistent boogeymen who are out to get them. His opinions are not valid, they are based on ignorance and fear and stupidity and privilege.

This is exactly the attitude that Trump is capitalizing on.

Only Republicans do this. Democratic politicians don't motivate their base by capitalizing on their fears of boogeymen like CEOs, corporations, the rich.

That wasn't what I said or commented on. I've just said it's, that attitude capitalizing you mentioned, not different from Carson, or Jeb, or Cruz, or Rubio. So why is he so popular?

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1512 on: May 09, 2016, 01:16:53 PM »
Trump's popularity is the totally predictable backlash to the left's arrogant attitude towards "flyover country."

So, the left's policies are skewing the Republican primary process? Interesting concept, but the right certainly has some culpability through their race to the bottom (anti-intellectual, strongly evangelical) pandering, as well.

Yep. You have a whole bunch of people who are tired of being told they are worthless anti-intellectual cretins. And Trump is telling them they have value.

I haven't seen much of the anti-intellectual stuff from Trump - just the usual home-grown GOP - anti-women, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, numbskull diplomacy ideas, and the chestnut of lower-taxes-will-solve everything. 

This guy is going to go down in flames in such and entertaining way I'm going to need an extra large popcorn for the show.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7674
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1513 on: May 09, 2016, 01:19:59 PM »
It doesn't actually explain his popularity though. He isn't saying anything new from the Republican base. He's just capitalizing on already established political party culture trend. It's not a new strategy for Republicans to turn to their base and tell them that the various "not them bogeymen" are out to get them.

And there we have it again: Joe Sixpack is an idiot, easily led by his betters due to unfounded fears of nonexistent boogeymen who are out to get them. His opinions are not valid, they are based on ignorance and fear and stupidity and privilege.


To be fair, this is a principle the the Founders believed in too. They didn't permit the direct election of our President precisely because they didn't think that it was a good idea to leave it up to "Joe Sixpack" (as you've taken to calling him). That's why the college of electorates exists. It's also why the President (or even the electorates) are not chosen based on the popular vote. 

I'm not saying it should be this way - just that it is.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2769
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1514 on: May 09, 2016, 01:25:39 PM »
It will be interesting to see who gets the youth vote that Sanders has currently monopolized.  Will more go towards Clinton, to Trump, or will they stay home?   To be sure, the under 30 demographic has had the worst voter turnout in every modern election - I see no reason yet why this year will be any different.

I don't want to pick on you, but I don't know why this is a question.  John Kerry won the youth vote 60-40 with higher turnout among the youth vote than Obama in 2012.  Clinton will win a higher share than that:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/04/25/young-voters-overwhelmingly-prefer-clinton-over-trump-poll/

And, I would guess more young people will turn out for a Clinton/Trump election than a Kerry/Bush election.

Is there any data to suggest that Clinton won't run away with the youth vote and the turnout will be similar to the past few elections?

I'm not quite sure why you think that might be picking on me... I asked it as an open question. I certainly do not take any offense in having a conversation.

Just that I quoted you when others had asked the same question earlier.  Nothing serious.

Quote
Forummm was the one who talked about Clinton having "a ton of trouble getting the youth vote already."  My two counter-points were basically that 1) to date the "youth vote" has largely gone to Sanders, and with his presumed exit it will flow somewhere else, and 2) the 'youth' vote has historically been the least important demographic, simply because they vote at such a lower percentage.
http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics

Both your points are true, but I'd argue not really that useful.  We don't need to hypothesize what young Sanders supporters will do because we have direct polling data showing Trump could win the lowest percentage of the youth vote in history the worst in a presidential election in a two-person race is Barry Goldwater losing the under-30 vote by 28 points and Trump's currently polling 36 points behind Clinton.

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1268
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1515 on: May 09, 2016, 01:30:41 PM »
Yep, Drumpf is moderating all his positions and will continue to do so for the next six months.  It's going to be a giant love fest.  He could care less about alienating the base because, let's be serious, his hard core supporters he won in the primary aren't going anywhere.  They have too much of their identity invested in him winning to ever be concerned about his actual policies.  They just don't want to be humiliated.  He needs to grab a significant number of independent voters.  He'll get a few of the Bernie voters who are the pseudo-anarchist types who want to see everything burn, but that is a smaller number than the media portrays. 

Hillary basically needs to portray him as the scariest man alive and hammer it in every day for six months.  There will be lots of talk of his temperament and "giving him the nuclear codes".  She can also attempt to dismantle his reputation as a good business man with some facts.

On the flip side, Drumpf has already started with "Crooked Hillary".  But I do wonder about how effective that tactic will really be, because I think a) this damage has already been inflicted on her.  She is already been tarred and feathered this way before and everyone is already generally aware of the scandals related to her. I honestly think she looks her best when being attacked on her reputation.  She gained tons of cred during the Benghazi hearings, and I think when people see her standing next to Drumpf during a debate, it is going to play very poorly if he attacks her about that stuff on stage.   Now sure, he could just make shit up about her a la "Ted Cruz's father helped kill Lee Harvey Oswald" but that isn't going to give him cred with the independent voter.  I actually think he will probably not confront her directly about scandals, but perhaps draw on the chatter about her health to make her look old and weak.

It has never been about the issues but about identity. that is why trump turned out so many voters. There has been plenty of other (seeming) down to earth middle of the road republicans that could get never get traction in past primaries.

the crooked hillary is not meant to attack and kill but to maim and wound; think komodo dragaon.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2769
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1516 on: May 09, 2016, 01:39:26 PM »
I think Clinton will win the youth vote, but it's (of course) margin of victory and turnout that matter. She's having trouble in the primaries, and a lot of those people are currently saying that they won't vote for her in the general. They may change their minds. They may stay home. If a lot of young people are turned off by the candidates then they just might stay home in even larger numbers than usual and that will lower Clinton's tally. One of the best things Clinton can do is to motivate turnout, and especially among the people that will be more likely to vote for her.

Sure.  But far fewer Bernie supporters say they won't vote for Clinton than Clinton supporters said they wouldn't vote for Obama 8 years ago.  Not only did that not happen, but Obama did pretty well in the 2008 election.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/how-bad-is-poll-that-says-25-of-bernie-sanders-fans-wont-vote-for-hillary/
« Last Edit: May 09, 2016, 02:00:29 PM by beltim »

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1268
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1517 on: May 09, 2016, 01:43:58 PM »
Trump's popularity is the totally predictable backlash to the left's arrogant attitude towards "flyover country."

So, the left's policies are skewing the Republican primary process? Interesting concept, but the right certainly has some culpability through their race to the bottom (anti-intellectual, strongly evangelical) pandering, as well.

yes it is the left's policies. Republicans have had to go along with them(lefts) because they knew they would loose elections in purple districts. they attempted to drum up support buy firing up the base (the anti-intellectual religious people) never worked because people would see them not supporting their policies while pandering to them. Trump panders to them without holding himself to 'conservative' or any other principle.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7360
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1518 on: May 09, 2016, 01:55:57 PM »
Trump's popularity is the totally predictable backlash to the left's arrogant attitude towards "flyover country."

So, the left's policies are skewing the Republican primary process? Interesting concept, but the right certainly has some culpability through their race to the bottom (anti-intellectual, strongly evangelical) pandering, as well.

Yep. You have a whole bunch of people who are tired of being told they are worthless anti-intellectual cretins. And Trump is telling them they have value.

No, Trump is telling them that he has value. He hasn't said a word about them.

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1622
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1519 on: May 09, 2016, 01:59:52 PM »
Trump talks like a revival preacher.   I was listening to a radio blurb today where he talks about fixing the trade imbalance.   "We are going to fix it so fast you won't believe it.  You won't believe it.  So fast you won't even believe it."   He repeated it so many times, just like a preacher.

I guess that stuff works and Trump seems to know how to sell.   The whole race could be a lot closer than we think.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7360
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1520 on: May 09, 2016, 02:03:48 PM »
I think Clinton will win the youth vote, but it's (of course) margin of victory and turnout that matter. She's having trouble in the primaries, and a lot of those people are currently saying that they won't vote for her in the general. They may change their minds. They may stay home. If a lot of young people are turned off by the candidates then they just might stay home in even larger numbers than usual and that will lower Clinton's tally. One of the best things Clinton can do is to motivate turnout, and especially among the people that will be more likely to vote for her.

Sure.  But far fewer Bernie supporters say they won't vote for Clinton than Clinton supporters did 8 years ago, and not only did that not happen, but Obama did pretty well in the 2008 election.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/how-bad-is-poll-that-says-25-of-bernie-sanders-fans-wont-vote-for-hillary/

I was hoping to find actual follow-up data in that link. But since it isn't there, I don't know what percent of those people followed through on their opinions at that time and chose not to vote, or to vote for another candidate. Sure, Obama still won, but that doesn't speak to the behavior of PUMA Clinton supporters. And those that did change may have been shaken into action by the calamitous financial crisis going on then. I don't know what's going to happen in 6 months. I said they might change their minds. I also said they might stay home. I'm sure some of both will happen. But who knows.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1521 on: May 09, 2016, 02:11:41 PM »
I've always found it odd that in this country there is a strong contingent of voters who DON'T want an intelligent person for present but would rather have someone they can relate to or have a beer with.  Really?  I want someone for president that is smarter than me, understands the nuances of economics and world politics, and doesn't make decisions lightly or with his/her gut.  We didn't use to belittle intelligence so much.  We used to have a war on poverty - not the poor.  Aspirations in government had some morality attached.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMqcLUqYqrs




beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2769
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1522 on: May 09, 2016, 02:14:05 PM »
I think Clinton will win the youth vote, but it's (of course) margin of victory and turnout that matter. She's having trouble in the primaries, and a lot of those people are currently saying that they won't vote for her in the general. They may change their minds. They may stay home. If a lot of young people are turned off by the candidates then they just might stay home in even larger numbers than usual and that will lower Clinton's tally. One of the best things Clinton can do is to motivate turnout, and especially among the people that will be more likely to vote for her.

Sure.  But far fewer Bernie supporters say they won't vote for Clinton than Clinton supporters did 8 years ago, and not only did that not happen, but Obama did pretty well in the 2008 election.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/how-bad-is-poll-that-says-25-of-bernie-sanders-fans-wont-vote-for-hillary/

I was hoping to find actual follow-up data in that link. But since it isn't there, I don't know what percent of those people followed through on their opinions at that time and chose not to vote, or to vote for another candidate. Sure, Obama still won, but that doesn't speak to the behavior of PUMA Clinton supporters. And those that did change may have been shaken into action by the calamitous financial crisis going on then. I don't know what's going to happen in 6 months. I said they might change their minds. I also said they might stay home. I'm sure some of both will happen. But who knows.

Sure, that would be interesting to know.  But my point is that we don't need to know despite a full quarter of Democratic primary voters saying they wouldn't vote for the Democratic nominee is 2008, only 7% of Democrats voted for the Republican candidate, and the turnout was the highest in 40 years.

This year fewer people say they won't vote for the Democratic nominee. 

The data show that this just isn't a significant issue.

infogoon

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1523 on: May 09, 2016, 02:16:07 PM »
If you look at Trump, many of his speech patterns, activities and mannerisms resonate with the working class.  Remember his WWF days?  Reality TV?

We were discussing the primary season at work, and somebody asked "Why is it that everyone derided Mitt for being an out-of-touch rich guy, but Trump is even richer and nobody tries to smear him with that?"

My response is that Trump isn't a corporate executive rich guy like Mitt, he's more like your neighbor who won the Powerball. "I'm gonna buy a giant plane, and I'm gonna put a solid gold toilet in it! That's classy!" He's way, way more relatable than someone like Mitt, who looks like the guy who decided to close down the factory that your family has been working in for three generations.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7360
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1524 on: May 09, 2016, 02:30:33 PM »
I think Clinton will win the youth vote, but it's (of course) margin of victory and turnout that matter. She's having trouble in the primaries, and a lot of those people are currently saying that they won't vote for her in the general. They may change their minds. They may stay home. If a lot of young people are turned off by the candidates then they just might stay home in even larger numbers than usual and that will lower Clinton's tally. One of the best things Clinton can do is to motivate turnout, and especially among the people that will be more likely to vote for her.

Sure.  But far fewer Bernie supporters say they won't vote for Clinton than Clinton supporters did 8 years ago, and not only did that not happen, but Obama did pretty well in the 2008 election.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/how-bad-is-poll-that-says-25-of-bernie-sanders-fans-wont-vote-for-hillary/

I was hoping to find actual follow-up data in that link. But since it isn't there, I don't know what percent of those people followed through on their opinions at that time and chose not to vote, or to vote for another candidate. Sure, Obama still won, but that doesn't speak to the behavior of PUMA Clinton supporters. And those that did change may have been shaken into action by the calamitous financial crisis going on then. I don't know what's going to happen in 6 months. I said they might change their minds. I also said they might stay home. I'm sure some of both will happen. But who knows.

Sure, that would be interesting to know.  But my point is that we don't need to know despite a full quarter of Democratic primary voters saying they wouldn't vote for the Democratic nominee is 2008, only 7% of Democrats voted for the Republican candidate, and the turnout was the highest in 40 years.

This year fewer people say they won't vote for the Democratic nominee. 

The data show that this just isn't a significant issue.

It didn't matter in 2008, you mean. Which could very well be different this time around. I agree that it's not that likely to be the deciding point in the race. But it's still in the "who knows" category. And even in 2008, the stat of only 7% of Ds voting for Rs doesn't count the Ds who stayed home instead of voting for Obama, or who voted for a 3rd party candidate. It also should be noted that a much smaller number of people vote in primaries vs vote in the general, 7% in the general could be  several times that in the primary.

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1024
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1525 on: May 09, 2016, 02:50:07 PM »
If you look at Trump, many of his speech patterns, activities and mannerisms resonate with the working class.  Remember his WWF days?  Reality TV?

We were discussing the primary season at work, and somebody asked "Why is it that everyone derided Mitt for being an out-of-touch rich guy, but Trump is even richer and nobody tries to smear him with that?"

My response is that Trump isn't a corporate executive rich guy like Mitt, he's more like your neighbor who won the Powerball. "I'm gonna buy a giant plane, and I'm gonna put a solid gold toilet in it! That's classy!" He's way, way more relatable than someone like Mitt, who looks like the guy who decided to close down the factory that your family has been working in for three generations.

He does manage to portray himself that way, yes, but Trump did inherit a good chunk. 

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1526 on: May 09, 2016, 03:05:36 PM »
If you look at Trump, many of his speech patterns, activities and mannerisms resonate with the working class.  Remember his WWF days?  Reality TV?

We were discussing the primary season at work, and somebody asked "Why is it that everyone derided Mitt for being an out-of-touch rich guy, but Trump is even richer and nobody tries to smear him with that?"

My response is that Trump isn't a corporate executive rich guy like Mitt, he's more like your neighbor who won the Powerball. "I'm gonna buy a giant plane, and I'm gonna put a solid gold toilet in it! That's classy!" He's way, way more relatable than someone like Mitt, who looks like the guy who decided to close down the factory that your family has been working in for three generations.

He does manage to portray himself that way, yes, but Trump did inherit a good chunk.
That may be true of what Mitt seems like, but Trump has always reminded me of the sleazy guy at the dealership who will say whatever he needs to to get you in the shiny new car you don't need and can't afford. "It's a great car. You're gonna love this car. Absolutely love it. All your friends will be so jealous." 
No, really. I spend a lot of time thinking about rocks.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2769
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1527 on: May 09, 2016, 04:04:37 PM »
I think Clinton will win the youth vote, but it's (of course) margin of victory and turnout that matter. She's having trouble in the primaries, and a lot of those people are currently saying that they won't vote for her in the general. They may change their minds. They may stay home. If a lot of young people are turned off by the candidates then they just might stay home in even larger numbers than usual and that will lower Clinton's tally. One of the best things Clinton can do is to motivate turnout, and especially among the people that will be more likely to vote for her.

Sure.  But far fewer Bernie supporters say they won't vote for Clinton than Clinton supporters did 8 years ago, and not only did that not happen, but Obama did pretty well in the 2008 election.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/how-bad-is-poll-that-says-25-of-bernie-sanders-fans-wont-vote-for-hillary/

I was hoping to find actual follow-up data in that link. But since it isn't there, I don't know what percent of those people followed through on their opinions at that time and chose not to vote, or to vote for another candidate. Sure, Obama still won, but that doesn't speak to the behavior of PUMA Clinton supporters. And those that did change may have been shaken into action by the calamitous financial crisis going on then. I don't know what's going to happen in 6 months. I said they might change their minds. I also said they might stay home. I'm sure some of both will happen. But who knows.

Sure, that would be interesting to know.  But my point is that we don't need to know despite a full quarter of Democratic primary voters saying they wouldn't vote for the Democratic nominee is 2008, only 7% of Democrats voted for the Republican candidate, and the turnout was the highest in 40 years.

This year fewer people say they won't vote for the Democratic nominee. 

The data show that this just isn't a significant issue.

It didn't matter in 2008, you mean.

It didn't matter in 2008 and there's no reason or evidence to think it'll be different this year.

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1528 on: May 10, 2016, 07:09:48 AM »
If you look at Trump, many of his speech patterns, activities and mannerisms resonate with the working class.  Remember his WWF days?  Reality TV?

We were discussing the primary season at work, and somebody asked "Why is it that everyone derided Mitt for being an out-of-touch rich guy, but Trump is even richer and nobody tries to smear him with that?"

My response is that Trump isn't a corporate executive rich guy like Mitt, he's more like your neighbor who won the Powerball. "I'm gonna buy a giant plane, and I'm gonna put a solid gold toilet in it! That's classy!" He's way, way more relatable than someone like Mitt, who looks like the guy who decided to close down the factory that your family has been working in for three generations.

I think it is also that Trump doesn't attempt to hide his wealth, he is honest about being rich.  He also actually employs a lot of people, and made his money employing people and "creating" things.  Even if he as rightly or wrongly also exploited Bankruptcy laws.

Mitt on the other hand was much more circumspect about his finances.  He also made his money by destroying things (vs his father who created things).  It think Americans tend to admire wealthy folks who build and create and create jobs, more than those who make money by destroying and pillaging other companies.

Proud Foot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 866
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1529 on: May 10, 2016, 08:09:58 AM »

An axiom of electoral politics in the US: Democratic_share(all citizens) > Democratic_share(registered voters) > Democratic_share(actual voters). If everyone voted, Democrats would win much more frequently than they do, and almost never lose the presidency. Instead, the actual voters skew older, richer, and much more conservative than the actual country as a whole. This is the reasoning behind the epidemic of voting restriction going on in places with Republican office holders. They are trying to make it harder for people to vote because they know that lower turnout means better chances for Republican candidates. Further, they are specifically trying to get lower turnout among college students and minorities, because those demos also skew heavily Democratic. Hence the significant reduction in polling places in those areas, reduction or elimination of early voting, voter ID laws, etc.

I completely agree with you here Forummm.  Republicans are the smaller, older party for the country as a whole.  And I think it will continue that way as the attitudes of the Republican establishment seems to be turning the college aged people and minorities away from the GOP. 

You didn't state your view on the voter ID laws but I'm curious what you think.  How does a simple voter ID law restrict voting? I completely understand how some requirements could be burdensome if the ID requirement was very narrow.  I do not think it would be too restrictive to be required to show some form of government issued identification with at a minimum your name on it.  This could be anything, your voter registration card, drivers license, id card, passport, birth certificate, etc. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10657
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1530 on: May 10, 2016, 09:03:50 AM »

An axiom of electoral politics in the US: Democratic_share(all citizens) > Democratic_share(registered voters) > Democratic_share(actual voters). If everyone voted, Democrats would win much more frequently than they do, and almost never lose the presidency. Instead, the actual voters skew older, richer, and much more conservative than the actual country as a whole. This is the reasoning behind the epidemic of voting restriction going on in places with Republican office holders. They are trying to make it harder for people to vote because they know that lower turnout means better chances for Republican candidates. Further, they are specifically trying to get lower turnout among college students and minorities, because those demos also skew heavily Democratic. Hence the significant reduction in polling places in those areas, reduction or elimination of early voting, voter ID laws, etc.

I completely agree with you here Forummm.  Republicans are the smaller, older party for the country as a whole.  And I think it will continue that way as the attitudes of the Republican establishment seems to be turning the college aged people and minorities away from the GOP. 

You didn't state your view on the voter ID laws but I'm curious what you think.  How does a simple voter ID law restrict voting? I completely understand how some requirements could be burdensome if the ID requirement was very narrow.  I do not think it would be too restrictive to be required to show some form of government issued identification with at a minimum your name on it.  This could be anything, your voter registration card, drivers license, id card, passport, birth certificate, etc.

http://pages.ucsd.edu/~zhajnal/page5/documents/voterIDhajnaletal.pdf
https://psmag.com/why-voting-restrictions-have-yet-to-lower-turnout-f5371c6c14ee#.8fsdmvwle
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/voter-id-laws-democratic-turnout_us_56d8c5bae4b0000de403f238

^ Regardless of how innocuous they appear, voter ID laws have been shown to restrict turn out of minorities.

Proud Foot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 866
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1531 on: May 10, 2016, 09:43:33 AM »
Thanks for those articles GuitarStv.  I do understand that the voter ID laws have restricted the turnout of minorities and do think that is a problem with them.  It most likely is because I am not a minority that I do not understand the how and why the laws restrict them.  I believe that voting is an integral part of our society and I see it as being more important than the multitude of other things which do require an ID.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7360
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1532 on: May 10, 2016, 09:51:20 AM »

An axiom of electoral politics in the US: Democratic_share(all citizens) > Democratic_share(registered voters) > Democratic_share(actual voters). If everyone voted, Democrats would win much more frequently than they do, and almost never lose the presidency. Instead, the actual voters skew older, richer, and much more conservative than the actual country as a whole. This is the reasoning behind the epidemic of voting restriction going on in places with Republican office holders. They are trying to make it harder for people to vote because they know that lower turnout means better chances for Republican candidates. Further, they are specifically trying to get lower turnout among college students and minorities, because those demos also skew heavily Democratic. Hence the significant reduction in polling places in those areas, reduction or elimination of early voting, voter ID laws, etc.

I completely agree with you here Forummm.  Republicans are the smaller, older party for the country as a whole.  And I think it will continue that way as the attitudes of the Republican establishment seems to be turning the college aged people and minorities away from the GOP. 

You didn't state your view on the voter ID laws but I'm curious what you think.  How does a simple voter ID law restrict voting? I completely understand how some requirements could be burdensome if the ID requirement was very narrow.  I do not think it would be too restrictive to be required to show some form of government issued identification with at a minimum your name on it.  This could be anything, your voter registration card, drivers license, id card, passport, birth certificate, etc. 

If there were some epidemic of fraud that a voter ID law would solve, then I would be for it. However, given that there's virtually no in-person, voter impersonation voter fraud, I don't think the laws are necessary, and are counterproductive. It's already a felony and a huge hassle to conduct this type of voter fraud. The risks are just not worth it under the traditional system--which is why it doesn't happen. The intent is clearly to suppress minority and lower income voter turnout. And I think there should be as few impediments to voting as possible because it's such an important part of our democracy. It's inefficient and antidemocratic to setup unnecessary restrictions. It's stupid to make people stand in line for an hour or more to vote. It's worse to discourage them from participating in the first place. Felons should also be allowed to vote. How are they any less citizens than the rest of us? They have done their time and that should be enough.

The voter ID laws are being passed because huge numbers of minorities don't have photo IDs--as many as 20% of African Americans in some states. If you are lower income and don't have a car--why would you get a drivers license? No need for it right?

http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665966.pdf

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/10/09/report-voter-id-laws-reduce-turnout-more-among-african-american-and-younger-voters/

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7674
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1533 on: May 10, 2016, 01:59:48 PM »


If there were some epidemic of fraud that a voter ID law would solve, then I would be for it. However, given that there's virtually no in-person, voter impersonation voter fraud, I don't think the laws are necessary, and are counterproductive. It's already a felony and a huge hassle to conduct this type of voter fraud. The risks are just not worth it under the traditional system--which is why it doesn't happen. The intent is clearly to suppress minority and lower income voter turnout. And I think there should be as few impediments to voting as possible because it's such an important part of our democracy. It's inefficient and antidemocratic to setup unnecessary restrictions. It's stupid to make people stand in line for an hour or more to vote. It's worse to discourage them from participating in the first place. Felons should also be allowed to vote. How are they any less citizens than the rest of us? They have done their time and that should be enough.

+1(!)
I have some inlaws that are super-conservative, conspiracy-theorist-style republicans ("Obama has a secret mosque in the basement of the White House, it's true!").  Over Easter two of them were talking about how the very moral fabric of our country depended on us having strict voter laws so that people couldn't "steal" the election by committing voter fraud.  I'm just baffled by this line of thinking - millions of ballots are cast in each state, and it's difficult to imagine that many people would go around to multiple polling stations to commit a felony that might nudge an election 0.00005% in one direction or another (seriously, that's what an extra vote out of 2M cast in a state would do).  I also don't believe that all but a few crack-jobs would attempt to vote at the same polling station under different assumed names on the exact same day, hoping that no one recognized them subsequent times.

We need to make it as easy as possible for people to vote - the only safeguards necessary are ones to prevent technical vote stealing (e.g. rigging voting machines). I agree with states that allow everyone to vote early/absentee.  You can file your taxes early, why not be able to cast you vote a week or two beforehand as your schedule allows?
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1534 on: May 10, 2016, 03:04:23 PM »


If there were some epidemic of fraud that a voter ID law would solve, then I would be for it. However, given that there's virtually no in-person, voter impersonation voter fraud, I don't think the laws are necessary, and are counterproductive. It's already a felony and a huge hassle to conduct this type of voter fraud. The risks are just not worth it under the traditional system--which is why it doesn't happen. The intent is clearly to suppress minority and lower income voter turnout. And I think there should be as few impediments to voting as possible because it's such an important part of our democracy. It's inefficient and antidemocratic to setup unnecessary restrictions. It's stupid to make people stand in line for an hour or more to vote. It's worse to discourage them from participating in the first place. Felons should also be allowed to vote. How are they any less citizens than the rest of us? They have done their time and that should be enough.

+1(!)
I have some inlaws that are super-conservative, conspiracy-theorist-style republicans ("Obama has a secret mosque in the basement of the White House, it's true!").  Over Easter two of them were talking about how the very moral fabric of our country depended on us having strict voter laws so that people couldn't "steal" the election by committing voter fraud.  I'm just baffled by this line of thinking - millions of ballots are cast in each state, and it's difficult to imagine that many people would go around to multiple polling stations to commit a felony that might nudge an election 0.00005% in one direction or another (seriously, that's what an extra vote out of 2M cast in a state would do).  I also don't believe that all but a few crack-jobs would attempt to vote at the same polling station under different assumed names on the exact same day, hoping that no one recognized them subsequent times.

We need to make it as easy as possible for people to vote - the only safeguards necessary are ones to prevent technical vote stealing (e.g. rigging voting machines). I agree with states that allow everyone to vote early/absentee.  You can file your taxes early, why not be able to cast you vote a week or two beforehand as your schedule allows?

We have almost entirely mail-in ballots in Washington state. There are a handful of booths in my county for those that prefer that. Recognizing that it could be a difficult system for those with shifting addresses, on the whole I think it is a great system. It allows me to spend time with my ballot making decisions, not have the hassle of going to a voting place, and I can log into a webpage and confirm that my ballot was received (outer envelope for tracking, inner envelope has ballot; For example, see: http://info.kingcounty.gov/elections/ballottracker.aspx).  This tracking also makes it much easier to prevent the bogeyman voter fraud. If states were serious about voting and preventing fraud, this seems like the easiest way to do it.

That said, mail voting does not appear to actually change turnout significantly.
http://ivn.us/2014/07/25/mail-voting-impact-voter-turnout/
No, really. I spend a lot of time thinking about rocks.

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 657
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1535 on: May 10, 2016, 03:22:28 PM »
It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1536 on: May 10, 2016, 03:51:34 PM »
It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.
I can understand this point of view. In a perfect world, I might even agree with it. However, some states couple voter ID laws with closing DMV offices in poor areas. For example, Alabama closing DMV offices in 2015 in 8 of 10 predominantly black counties... which were already only open a few hours a week as-is. If obtaining ID is actually difficult or expensive, then it is not just a matter of being bothered to get a valid ID. If preferential barriers are set up against segments of a population it is disenfranchisement.
No, really. I spend a lot of time thinking about rocks.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7674
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1537 on: May 10, 2016, 04:00:50 PM »
It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.

It shouldn't be a problem at all - laws that restrict voting by requiring a specific form of ID that costs money to obtain (driver's licenses, most state ID card, etc) or prevent people from registering and voting on the same week are pretending that there's a problem with voter fraud that doesn't meaningfully exist.

THe fact that you phrased it as "can't be bothered" is itself the problem - voting should be as little of a bother as technically possible. 
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6562
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1538 on: May 10, 2016, 04:17:31 PM »
It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.

If you're such a die hard conservative, where in the constitution does it say that getting a government ID should be a requirement for citizenship?  This is one of those issues, like government meddling in abortion, where I think conservatives willfully abandon their ideology in favor of their positions.  They want less government intervention in everything, except these few things that apparently need lots more government intervention and regulation. 

Voter ID laws would prevent people from in person voter fraud, which is almost zero, while doing nothing to prevent vote rigging, ballot theft, deliberate miscounts,  electronic voter machine hacking, poll taxes, voter intimidation, or Supreme Court decisions that violate the vote total.  All of which actually DO happen, while in person voter fraud does not.  If these people actually cared about the integrity of our voting process they could address any of those things. 

But they don't, because fixing those problems doesn't suppress minority voter turnout and voter ID laws do.  The whole thing is a poorly veiled farce of racism and discrimination, and I'm ashamed of my country every time we pass another one of those laws.  33 states and counting!

madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2104
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1539 on: May 10, 2016, 05:35:01 PM »
It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.

If you're such a die hard conservative, where in the constitution does it say that getting a government ID should be a requirement for citizenship?  This is one of those issues, like government meddling in abortion, where I think conservatives willfully abandon their ideology in favor of their positions.  They want less government intervention in everything, except these few things that apparently need lots more government intervention and regulation. 

Voter ID laws would prevent people from in person voter fraud, which is almost zero, while doing nothing to prevent vote rigging, ballot theft, deliberate miscounts,  electronic voter machine hacking, poll taxes, voter intimidation, or Supreme Court decisions that violate the vote total.  All of which actually DO happen, while in person voter fraud does not.  If these people actually cared about the integrity of our voting process they could address any of those things. 

But they don't, because fixing those problems doesn't suppress minority voter turnout and voter ID laws do.  The whole thing is a poorly veiled farce of racism and discrimination, and I'm ashamed of my country every time we pass another one of those laws.  33 states and counting!

Agreed. For nice middle class people with tidy lives, sure it's easy to get ID. But I didn't get mine till I was in my well into my twenties, because I had no birth certificate or social security card -- my dad was so piss-poor at keeping track of documentation that I ended up getting my vaccinations again every time we moved!

And I won't tell you about how fun it was to try to get my grandma's birth certificate from a rural county in West Virginia, a copy of her social security card when she wasn't able to appear in person at the SS office, and then to drag her out in the snow in a wheelchair to sit for half a day at the DMV. Should my grandma not have been allowed to vote? Should she be accused of potential voter fraud? It's quite a stupid argument.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1377
  • Location: Denver
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1540 on: May 10, 2016, 05:43:06 PM »
It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.

Oh here we go. Just admit that Republicans want voter ID to win elections. Some politicians pushing these laws already have!  They can only win when people don't vote. If they had ideas that people supported, they wouldn't need to restrict voting.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2016, 05:49:28 PM by thefinancialstudent »
Refinanced $35,000 Parent PLUS loan with Earnest | 7.65% to 4.65%. | $200 bonus: http://goo.gl/dCbBZy

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 666
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1541 on: May 10, 2016, 05:48:01 PM »
The scariest part about Trump may not be that he has fired up some of our more racist or angry citizens. It is his approach to finances and his seeming belief that the US finance system is no different than his personal one. Trump has said some scary, wrong and dangerous shit about borrowing money, bankruptcy, and printing money that could absolutely wreck the global economy. The confidence in the stability of the American dollar is one of the corner stones of the global economy. Unlike Trumps personal ventures where he can take out risky loans, let a project bomb, and then use tricks to back out of paying people back; those kinds of actions taken with the US economy would be disastrous. Even the suggestion could send investors into a panic increase volatility in the market and increasing interest rates.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7928
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1542 on: May 10, 2016, 05:53:08 PM »
And I won't tell you about how fun it was to try to get my grandma's birth certificate from a rural county in West Virginia, a copy of her social security card when she wasn't able to appear in person at the SS office, and then to drag her out in the snow in a wheelchair to sit for half a day at the DMV. Should my grandma not have been allowed to vote? Should she be accused of potential voter fraud? It's quite a stupid argument.

Does grandma still live in WVa?  If so, based on http://www.sos.wv.gov/elections/current/Pages/VoterFAQs.aspx it appears you went through more trouble than needed.  E.g.,
Quote
If you are registering to vote for the first time in West Virginia or your county, and you have not voted in a federal election in this state, you must show a valid ID with your application or the first time you vote. If you mail your application, you may send a copy of a valid ID. We accept the following documents that show your current name and address:

    Valid photo identification
    Utility bill
    Bank statement
    Government check
    Paycheck
    Any other official government document

Other states may be more draconian....

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 666
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1543 on: May 10, 2016, 05:56:30 PM »
It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.

Oh here we go.

I know lol...

 The problem people have with the laws is mainly that it is so clearly an attempt to make voting more difficult (to suppress turnout of certain demographics) under the guise that it is to prevent voter fraud. If there were evidence of rampant voter fraud then obviously the law may be a fine measure. But that evidence is lacking.

The Repubs are not alone in this though. Both parties are not above using cheap tricks and obscure laws to suppress voter turnout for their opponents and increase the odds that their supporters will vote. I guess that's what you get when most politicians are lawyers by trade.

madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2104
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1544 on: May 10, 2016, 05:59:13 PM »
And I won't tell you about how fun it was to try to get my grandma's birth certificate from a rural county in West Virginia, a copy of her social security card when she wasn't able to appear in person at the SS office, and then to drag her out in the snow in a wheelchair to sit for half a day at the DMV. Should my grandma not have been allowed to vote? Should she be accused of potential voter fraud? It's quite a stupid argument.

Does grandma still live in WVa?

No, we were living in PA at the time and she needed ID for other reasons, not just voting. It was not a simple process to get it for her!

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1545 on: May 11, 2016, 07:22:04 AM »
It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.

If you're such a die hard conservative, where in the constitution does it say that getting a government ID should be a requirement for citizenship?  This is one of those issues, like government meddling in abortion, where I think conservatives willfully abandon their ideology in favor of their positions.  They want less government intervention in everything, except these few things that apparently need lots more government intervention and regulation. 

Voter ID laws would prevent people from in person voter fraud, which is almost zero, while doing nothing to prevent vote rigging, ballot theft, deliberate miscounts,  electronic voter machine hacking, poll taxes, voter intimidation, or Supreme Court decisions that violate the vote total.  All of which actually DO happen, while in person voter fraud does not.  If these people actually cared about the integrity of our voting process they could address any of those things. 

But they don't, because fixing those problems doesn't suppress minority voter turnout and voter ID laws do.  The whole thing is a poorly veiled farce of racism and discrimination, and I'm ashamed of my country every time we pass another one of those laws.  33 states and counting!
To be fair, there were pretty strict voter laws when the constitution came into effect, you had to be a white male land owner, they also didn't know what an ID card was.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4548
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1546 on: May 11, 2016, 07:39:29 AM »
It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.

Oh here we go.

I know lol...

 The problem people have with the laws is mainly that it is so clearly an attempt to make voting more difficult (to suppress turnout of certain demographics) under the guise that it is to prevent voter fraud. If there were evidence of rampant voter fraud then obviously the law may be a fine measure. But that evidence is lacking.

The Repubs are not alone in this though. Both parties are not above using cheap tricks and obscure laws to suppress voter turnout for their opponents and increase the odds that their supporters will vote. I guess that's what you get when most politicians are lawyers by trade.
I'd be interested in seeing an example of that from the Dems.  I never have.

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1547 on: May 11, 2016, 07:41:50 AM »
It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.

If you're such a die hard conservative, where in the constitution does it say that getting a government ID should be a requirement for citizenship?  This is one of those issues, like government meddling in abortion, where I think conservatives willfully abandon their ideology in favor of their positions.  They want less government intervention in everything, except these few things that apparently need lots more government intervention and regulation. 

Voter ID laws would prevent people from in person voter fraud, which is almost zero, while doing nothing to prevent vote rigging, ballot theft, deliberate miscounts,  electronic voter machine hacking, poll taxes, voter intimidation, or Supreme Court decisions that violate the vote total.  All of which actually DO happen, while in person voter fraud does not.  If these people actually cared about the integrity of our voting process they could address any of those things. 

But they don't, because fixing those problems doesn't suppress minority voter turnout and voter ID laws do.  The whole thing is a poorly veiled farce of racism and discrimination, and I'm ashamed of my country every time we pass another one of those laws.  33 states and counting!
To be fair, there were pretty strict voter laws when the constitution came into effect, you had to be a white male land owner, they also didn't know what an ID card was.

Then we had the 24th amendment abolishing poll taxes.  Requiring an ID can easily be considered a poll tax when you consider the expense and time required to obtain it.  Not necessarily a significant tax, but a tax nonetheless.  Either way it is easily documented that ID requirements depress voter turnout in Blacks, Hispanics, students and the elderly. 

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1268
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1548 on: May 11, 2016, 07:52:47 AM »

Then we had the 24th amendment abolishing poll taxes.  Requiring an ID can easily be considered a poll tax when you consider the expense and time required to obtain it.  Not necessarily a significant tax, but a tax nonetheless.  Either way it is easily documented that ID requirements depress voter turnout in Blacks, Hispanics, students and the elderly.

This is the part that pisses me off about voter id laws. voting is the only act that requires some type of action on the part of the government but that still should be as unencumbered as possible and should never approach violating any other rights. and since you must have some form of proof of citizenship/ss card. you basically have to violate your right to privacy in order to gain your right to vote. even if I am willing to do that to drive a automobile does not mean I am in order to vote.


deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1549 on: May 11, 2016, 07:53:03 AM »
It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.

Oh here we go.

I know lol...

 The problem people have with the laws is mainly that it is so clearly an attempt to make voting more difficult (to suppress turnout of certain demographics) under the guise that it is to prevent voter fraud. If there were evidence of rampant voter fraud then obviously the law may be a fine measure. But that evidence is lacking.

The Repubs are not alone in this though. Both parties are not above using cheap tricks and obscure laws to suppress voter turnout for their opponents and increase the odds that their supporters will vote. I guess that's what you get when most politicians are lawyers by trade.
I'd be interested in seeing an example of that from the Dems.  I never have.

I just spent a few minutes looking and the only thing I have found that really fits is some groups like ACORN turned in probably fraudulent registration forms.  Those were few in number and the result of individual people trying to meet "quota".  It really cant be classified as fraud because those fake registration do not translate to fake votes.  Generally, democrats fair better with large turnouts so suppressing the vote is counterproductive.