dagblog - Comments for ""The rookie mistake is to forget you are the enemy""

People do live without IDs.

rmrd0000 — Sat, 30 Dec 2017 04:56:01 +0000

In reply to I agree with you on the ID

People do live without IDs. About 11% of the population does not have a photo ID. Trying to obtain a photo ID ab be an insurmountable obstacle.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a-photo-id-so-you-can-vote-is-easy-unless-youre-poor-black-latino-or-elderly/2016/05/23/8d5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html?utm_term=.9972cd6381a7

I agree with you on the ID

CVille Dem — Sat, 30 Dec 2017 04:29:30 +0000

In reply to What's your point? I tend to

I agree with you on the ID issue, although I have also gotten much flak for that. You can’t cash a check, get a bank account, drive a car, or even apply for social security or Medicare ore Medicaid without an I.D. I simply don’t think it is an unreasonable request, but I agree that the sabotaging of the availability of ID’s is where our efforts should go.

This is not the same as segregation. It is simply a requirement that you identify yourself, which you also have to do if you fly on a plane, get a passport, a library card, go to a doctors office, or any number of things that everyone accepts is necessary to get along in the world.

I don’t know how anyone manages to get by without a picture ID, but since it is such a hot issue, the way to go is to assist people to get their ID’s. This would help people in ways that go far beyond voting, I think fighting the concept of showing an ID is silly, and a lost cause.

Separate but equal was law

rmrd0000 — Sat, 30 Dec 2017 00:35:29 +0000

In reply to What's your point? I tend to

Separate but equal was law but the standards differed between schools. If the way the law is enforced is unjust like hidden fees, disappearing places where IDs are available, etc. The enforcement of the law should be challenged.

Edit to add:

Court battles continue

https://www.brennancenter.org/legal-work/naacp-v-steen

What's your point? I tend to

ocean-kat — Fri, 29 Dec 2017 22:05:55 +0000

In reply to From your Wiki link. Voter ID

What's your point? I tend to agree but it doesn't matter what our opinion is. All that matters is what the Supreme Court decides and they've decided photo Id laws are constitutional. It likely wouldn't be overturned if liberals controlled the court, Supreme Court justices don't like to overturn previous Supreme Court decisions. And it definitely won't be changed with the right wing in control. That's why the better path forward is to attempt to get easier and cheaper access to Id's rather than fighting a losing battle to stop the law.

I’m OK with saying that they

rmrd0000 — Fri, 29 Dec 2017 15:03:15 +0000

In reply to Where did he say that? I

I’m OK with saying that they had no problem voting for a racist. From that standpoint, the Trump base and the Obama-Trump folks are identical.

What is your message to bring Obama-Trump voters back into the fold given that Trump has promised them a tax cut?

The study was of People who

rmrd0000 — Fri, 29 Dec 2017 14:44:42 +0000

In reply to Polls require thoughtful

The study was of People who switched parties. The “Trump” data was of Obama to Trump voters.

Edit to add:

The pdf of the study

https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publications/2017-voter-survey/party-hoppers

The methodology used is given in the appendices. The second appendix notes how beliefs beliefs predicted party switching,. In the Democratic column, note the impact of negative feelings towards blacks. Among Obama-Trump voters, racial bias was a predictor of switching to the GOP and Trump.

Racial bias impacted Trump’s base and Obama-Trump voters.

The study also notes the problem Democrats have with a subset of white voters. It is unclear what message Democrats can send to win these voters back.

From your Wiki link. Voter ID

rmrd0000 — Fri, 29 Dec 2017 13:15:03 +0000

In reply to North Carolina was a

From your Wiki link. Voter ID often serves as a more expensive version of the outlawed poll tax

According to a Harvard study, "the expenses for documentation, travel, and waiting time [for obtaining voter identification cards] are significant—especially for minority group and low-income voters—typically ranging from about $75 to $175. When legal fees are added to these numbers, the costs range as high as $1,500."[46][47] So even if the cards themselves may be free, the costs associated with obtaining the card can be expensive.[46] The author of the study notes that the costs associated with obtaining the card far exceeds the $1.50 poll tax outlawed by the 24th amendment in 1964

North Carolina was a

ocean-kat — Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:05:48 +0000

In reply to There is no one on the other

North Carolina was a particularly egregious case. While that particular law might be blocked by the court other voter id laws have been found constitutional. 2/3 of the states have some version of a voter id law and several states have strict photo Id laws. Indiana in 2006 became the first state to enact a strict photo ID law, a law that was upheld two years later by the U.S. Supreme Court. Laws that have failed in the courts failed for other provisions of the law not the Id requirement. In the end any state that wants to require a photo Id to vote can pass one. That's already been decided as a constitutional issue. It's done. Democrats can attempt to fight photo Id's and lose both legally and politically or they can attempt to compromise and perhaps get some provisions to help poorer residents get a photo Id. States with closely divided legislatures frequently compromise because they have to.

There is no one on the other

rmrd0000 — Fri, 29 Dec 2017 07:35:53 +0000

In reply to I think you've nailed it. I

There is no one on the other side to form a compromise. The cases have to be fought in court. North Carolina was a recent victory.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/15/528457693/supreme-court-declines-republican-bid-to-revive-north-carolina-voter-id-law

Trump now has a voter fraud “commission”..Do you think the commission will compromise?

I think you've nailed it. I

ocean-kat — Fri, 29 Dec 2017 04:58:58 +0000

In reply to Where did he say that? I

I think you've nailed it. I was once anti black because I argued that democrats should stop fighting voter ID and reach a compromise on the issue. Of course I'm against voter suppression and I know it's racially targeted but the vast majority of Americans will never accept that you shouldn't show an ID to vote when you have to show one to buy a 6 pack of beer or a cigarette. It's a political loser. The bigger problem is while states are requiring ID's they are also closing DMV offices in black population areas. A good compromise is to accept voter ID while setting up a robust and easy way for every one to get one.